House of Commons Debates

VOLUME 148 ● NUMBER 197 ● 1st SESSION ● 42nd PARLIAMENT

OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

Monday, June 19, 2017

Speaker: The Honourable Geoff Regan CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) 12873

HOUSE OF COMMONS

Monday, June 19, 2017

The House met at 11 a.m. report information on community benefits. This provision would ultimately create a platform to minimize possible delays and promote flexibility for community infrastructure development. Prayers CBAs would enable the ministry of public services and procurement to formulate agreements with federal infrastructure PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS developers with added input from community groups. These agreements would lay the foundation to encourage local commu- ● (1105) nities to build partnerships with developers. Ultimately, CBAs would [English] strengthen the socio-economic influence of publicly funded devel- DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT opment projects. SERVICES ACT Mr. Ramesh Sangha (Brampton Centre, Lib.) moved that Bill For example, in my riding of Brampton Centre, federal C-344, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and investments into infrastructure have greatly contributed to social Government Services Act (community benefit), be read the second development in the community. The Züm bus rapid transit fund has time and referred to a committee. revolutionized transit infrastructure across the City of Brampton and He said: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House with the has attracted approximately $95 million of federal investment. support of the hon. member for Don Valley North to introduce my Further, a federal investment of $69 million in a stormwater private member's bill, Bill C-344, an act to amend the Department of management project in Peel region has greatly contributed to Public Works and Government Services Act to introduce community improving the quality of life in the community. However, had CBAs benefits. been tied to these investments, the overall impact could have been I would like to take this moment to thank the residents of my much greater. Communities across Canada rely on federal invest- riding of Brampton Centre for giving me the opportunity to ments to fund development projects, so if CBAs are tied to these introduce the bill and for electing me as the first member of federal investments, communities would thrive. Parliament for Brampton Centre. Bill C-344 would further strengthen the federal infrastructure This was evident in the city of Vancouver, where the 2010 investment in communities, such as in my riding, and throughout Olympic Village was built under a CBA. This initiative allowed Canada. communities to have a direct input on the project. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the member for York South—Weston for his extensive work on his previous private Bill C-344 would allow for comprehensive consultations with member's bill. At the committee hearing, two amendments to Bill communities across Canada, consequently strengthening local C-227 were suggested by the committee. Hence my bill, Bill C-344, infrastructure investments. It would also reduce red tape for small is before the house today. and medium-sized businesses and further accelerate the approval Community benefit agreements, referred to as CBAs, create socio- process for federal repair and construction projects. economic opportunities for local communities and neighbourhoods as well as environmental benefits as a result of federal development projects across Canada. These benefits include local job creation, ● (1110) apprenticeships, affordable housing, education, support for seniors, health care, and other key benefits for communities. Moreover, various business groups and organizations support the Bill C-344 would amend section 20 of the Department of Public concept of CBAs. The boards of trade for Brampton, Toronto, Works and Government Services Act. This would include a Vancouver, and Montreal, and various unions, have endorsed CBAs provision that would enable the Minister of Public Services and as strong economic policy and an optimal way to promote youth Procurement to require successful bidders on federal projects to employment. 12874 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Private Members' Business As a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, and Government Services Act (community benefit) so that Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with communities across Canada can have access to enhanced infra- Disabilities, referred to as HUMA, I have first-hand experience of structure developments. the harsh realities of poverty in Canada. This committee has conducted a study with recommendations on a national poverty reduction strategy that was submitted to this Parliament. It is quite Besides the tangible benefits offered by CBAs, they will also evident that CBAs will promote increased prosperity and drastically serve as a vehicle for the pursuit of dignity and rebuild the core reduce poverty in communities across Canada. infrastructure of Canadian communities that are eagerly awaiting them. Further, a joint report from the Mowat Centre and the Atkinson Foundation found that CBAs have the ability to promote a better environment for unique areas. In Ontario alone, the provincial Mr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I government will invest $130 billion into public infrastructure over know it is very honourable to present a bill and I understand it is a the next 10 years. The federal government has committed more than private member's bill, but certainly, with all due respect to the $180 billion into transit, green, and social infrastructures. As such, member, we must not have read the same bill, because he stated this is the time to collaborate with communities so they can also twice—not once, but twice—that the bill would reduce red tape. benefit from such lucrative federal investments. However, on the contrary, small and medium-sized enterprises would now have to produce a report to the minister that specifies the CBAs will ultimately enhance the socio-economic development community benefit, and it is to his discretion concerning which of cities across Canada. CBAs have already been implemented in benefits there will be. Ontario with the enactment of the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act. This act aims to remove any red tape so that the approval process for provincial infrastructure investment projects Can the member explain to me how he can actually see the bill as can be more efficient. a reduction of red tape when it is contrary to what is in the bill? Furthermore, a number of organizations, including Metrolinx and the Toronto Community Benefits Network, have signed a commu- Mr. Ramesh Sangha: Mr. Speaker, this bill is with regard to nity benefits framework, the first in Ontario. communities, involvement of the communities, benefit for the communities, so that the communities get the benefit from the bill. The U.S.A. and the U.K. have already adopted the CBA concept There is no possibility of any delays or red tape, which my friend into their respective infrastructure investments. In the U.S.A., CBA seems to be apprehensive about. success stories include the Atlanta Beltline project, the Los Angeles airport expansion, and the Los Angeles Grand Avenue project. One stipulation on these projects was the requirement to submit reports The communities will be involved. The communities themselves on the benefits derived for communities. Provinces such as Nova are willing to take these responsibilities. They will come forward to Scotia, Quebec, and Manitoba are also in the process of adopting the help developers, to help the government, to quicken the process of CBA concept. the bill, so there is no possibility of red tape. Rather it is a win-win situation, and the communities will have the best benefits out of the Bill C-344 would authorize the Minister of Public Services and bill. Procurement to require bidders to provide a detailed explanation of how government-funded projects will benefit the community. It would also require the minister to report to Parliament on an annual Mr. Erin Weir (Regina—Lewvan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am basis on what community benefits have been implemented. wondering if my colleague from Brampton Centre could clarify the scope of the bill. Does it apply only to infrastructure that is entirely Bill C-344 is about implementing CBAs in the federal funded by the federal government, which would be a very small jurisdiction. This will give added responsibility to the Government subset of public infrastructure, or does it apply to infrastructure that of Canada to exercise leadership in implementing CBAs across is cost-shared among the federal government, provinces, and Canada. Ultimately, CBAs will create the foundation for commu- municipalities. If so, how would the government plan to negotiate nities to earn their fair share of federal infrastructure investment. community benefits with provinces and municipalities? This will ensure that communities have reliable growth and meaningful employment while fostering a healthier environment. Mr. Ramesh Sangha: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-344 just addresses ● (1115) community benefits. Federal infrastructure spending investments This is an extraordinary opportunity for the Government of would be invested into the local community. From that investment, Canada and the Government of Ontario to have CBAs preserved in local communities will get further benefit for the community itself. law. This can serve as a model for other jurisdictions to follow. It is about ensuring that future federal infrastructure projects would generate community benefits for all Canadians coast to coast to The bill will involve government representatives and the local coast. community at large, so this bill will give power to the community to collaborate with a partnership and have their own say about I therefore humbly invite all my colleagues in this House to infrastructure. Surely they will feel that they are getting their fair support Bill C-344, an act to amend the Department of Public Works share of the federal infrastructure spending, and they will get it. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12875

Private Members' Business ● (1120) Vancouver's Olympic Village was in fact the worst example that Ms. Leona Alleslev (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, the member could have used to illustrate how his bill would benefit Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. colleague could shed some the community, or at least help small businesses. light on why this is such an important leadership approach, where the federal government is actually identifying and changing the The member said not once, but twice that this bill would cut down conversation so that when industries invest in projects they are able on paperwork and red tape and reduce the number of forms small to make them around community benefits. businesses have to fill; that was the point of the question I asked him. In fact, the opposite is true. The specific focus of the bill is to now Mr. Ramesh Sangha: Mr. Speaker, today there is a need for make small businesses fill out a form for the minister; the communities to be involved in the function of government and into community benefits will therefore be at his discretion. The very infrastructure. They know that some infrastructure is going to be purpose of the bill is to create paperwork. It is an incredible thing to built in their communities, so they want to be involved. say that it will cut red tape. [Translation] That was my introduction. Mr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I will continue this debate in French. I wish to inform you that Her Last week, during my speech on the 2017 budget, I said that the Majesty's official opposition will oppose this private member's bill purpose of most of the Liberal bills introduced over the past two and vote against it. years has been to benefit certain special interest groups. I hate to rain on anyone's parade, and I know the bill sponsor is ● (1125) not going to like this, but we will be voting against the bill for some eminently sensible reasons that I will explain. These bills are not introduced for the benefit of Canadians in I would like to comment on the member for Brampton Centre's general, that is, all individual Canadians, but rather to help special speech. The government's role is to allow everyone to compete. interest groups. I believe Bill C-344 to be a prime example of this When it grants contracts to third parties, parties outside the government’s legislative proclivity. government, such as small and medium-sized businesses, big businesses, and organizations, it must ensure that RFPs are written I would also like to remind members how the bill came to be. It so as to maximize everyone's opportunity. That means minimizing was first introduced by the current Minister of Immigration, paperwork and constraints, which can be obstacles for some small Refugees and Citizenship as Bill C-227. It was then dropped from and medium-sized businesses that want to bid. In Canada, such the Order Paper a few months ago, after the member was appointed businesses have fewer resources than large construction companies, to cabinet, only to return to it later. for example. The member said that this bill was significant, fundamental and The member said the bill would provide flexibility in granting necessary for Canada in that it will allow communities to make their contracts. That is ironic, because the opposite is true. This bill will needs known given the expected benefits of a given project. If that make the RFP process, which is open to everyone, more were the case, why is this not a bill that the government would want cumbersome. to introduce? Why is it not a government bill? He also said that this would help communities. I only wish that While I can appreciate that this is not within the current Minister were the case, but after reading the bill, which contains almost no of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship’s portfolio, why did he not details and consists of only one page and three clauses, I can find no bring this bill forward as quickly as possible? This could have been indication that any assistance will be provided to communities. What settled a few months ago. If this were such an effective and will happen, however, is that small and medium-sized businesses important bill, it could have been passed months ago. will be subject to greater constraints and more red tape. I would like to believe the member when he says he wants to help Canadian communities and municipalities, but that is not at all what the bill The fact that the Liberals removed this bill from the Order Paper appears to do. I say this with some reservation, since that is my and then put it back shows that they likely thought it was interpretation, although it is also how the opposition sees it. inconsequential since there is not much to it. They probably figured that they would just hand it over to some MP so that he could In addition, speaking of economic benefits for local communities, introduce a bill. I know how it goes. It is good to give hon. members the member referred to the Olympic Village in Vancouver. That was the chance to introduce bills, but this bill is essentially going to harm one of the largest projects undertaken in Canada in recent years, and small and medium-sized businesses. it is hardly the kind of local benefits our colleague was referring to in his bill, in other words, infrastructure such as bridges and so on. The Let me get into the technical details of the bill before it is too late. Olympic Village in Vancouver was a megaproject involving huge We in the opposition have identified some problems. There are no Canadian corporations that are accustomed to being very efficient criteria in this bill for how small and medium-sized businesses are to and getting sizable returns. They have good relationships with the respond to the minister's mandatory assessment. There are no government and are capable of meeting project deadlines, as was the criteria, directives, guidelines, or substantive information in this bill case for the Olympic Games. indicating precisely how SMEs have to fill out the form. 12876 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Private Members' Business There is no indication of the criteria, the length of the form, or We see, for example, the construction of the new Champlain whether anthropologists and sociologists will have to analyze every Bridge using only 19% Canadian-made steel. Even as we have steel little spinoff from the project, whether environmental, economic, or mills struggling through bankruptcy protection and laying off social. What is more, subclause 21.1(1) of the bill states: workers, the Canadian government is importing a huge amount of steel to build this new bridge. This would be a great example of ...any other specific benefit identified by the community. where the concept of community benefits could be put into effect in I think we can all agree that this could have a major impact on a very useful way. Therefore, I agree with basically everything that what could be required of small and medium-sized businesses when the member for Brampton Centre said; I am just somewhat skeptical they fill out the form. For example, if a municipality decides to that this bill would actually achieve the laudable goals that the assess the community benefits for a certain historic group, such as member set forward. indigenous people, the input of anthropologists and historians will The first thing that is important to emphasize is that this bill certainly be required. Just imagine if a small or medium-sized would not require community benefit agreements. It would not even business in Toronto, for example, where the member is from, was require contractors to provide information on community benefits. required to hire anthropologists and sociologists before building a What it would do is allow the minister to require contractors to bridge. That is completely ridiculous. provide this information. Therefore, in the hands of a very energetic Another problem is that it is left up to the minister's discretion and proactive minister, it is possible that this bill could be used as a whether a form explaining the community benefits will need to be tool to help negotiate community benefit agreements, but it would filled out. The minister will also decide whether or not to present the not actually require the government to do anything of the sort. report on community benefits to Parliament. The bill cannot be that Another very important issue is the scope of this legislation. I serious if the minister can choose not to apply its provisions. The bill asked the member for Brampton Centre whether it would apply only states: to infrastructure that is entirely funded by the federal government, A contracting party shall, upon request by the Minister, provide the Minister with which is very little infrastructure, or whether it would apply to an assessment as to whether community benefits have derived from the project. infrastructure that the federal government cost-shares with other levels of government. We did not get any kind of a clear answer to I will close by mentioning the worst part, which is that the that question, but this is a real issue and it came up at committee minister could request a report on the community benefits after the when this bill's predecessor, Bill C-227, went before the transport bids have already been submitted and after the SME has already committee. The government essentially tried to indicate that Bill finished the work. However, we know that contracting parties need C-227 would only apply to infrastructure totally funded by the to have a good idea of how much things will cost before work federal government, which means it would not apply to very much begins. What the government is telling them is that, after the work is infrastructure at all. done, they may have to meet other requirements that will cost them more money. We believe that a more realistic proposal would be to apply this legislation to infrastructure that the federal government cost-shares This is a truly a bad piece of legislation as it now stands. It must with other levels of government, but of course that would require a be sent to committee or even killed because it is just a source of red lot more detail and a lot more information about how the federal tape and does not contain any clear directions. government would reconcile its objectives in terms of community ● (1130) benefits with those of provincial and municipal governments. I believe there is the potential for the federal government to work [English] together with provinces and municipalities in quite a constructive Mr. Erin Weir (Regina—Lewvan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we have fashion to achieve community benefit agreements. However, that is heard that the Conservatives will be opposing this bill because it something we should be acknowledging and discussing, rather than lacks specifics but they see the potential for negative consequences. talking about this bill as though it would only apply to the very small We in the NDP are a hopeful and optimistic party, so despite the subset of infrastructure that is entirely paid for by the federal bill's lack of specifics we will be supporting it because we see the government itself. potential for it to be quite positive legislation. We will also be proposing amendments at committee to try to set out some of those Another issue I would like to raise regarding this bill is the lack of needed specifics. We certainly support the concept of community evaluation or monitoring. If we were to have a successful strategy to benefit agreements, trying to ensure that public infrastructure implement community benefit agreements, we would want a very investment creates local jobs and local training opportunities and good mechanism to report back on whether the benefits were that it really enriches the local community. actually achieved. ● (1135) One of the main purposes the government has provided for infrastructure investment is to boost the Canadian economy. Of What this bill talks about is the minister providing a report on course, infrastructure spending only boosts the economy to the community benefits, which could be almost anything. The minister extent that it employs Canadian workers and procures Canadian- could easily just pick and choose projects that had some community made inputs. However, the current government has a very weak track benefits, and highlight those and trumpet those. It would be very record of actually making an effort to use procurement policy in that easy for the minister to just put forward a positive report without way. actually doing much analysis or without really evaluating anything. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12877

Private Members' Business We believe it would make a lot more sense for this bill to actually In conclusion, we in the NDP are going to support this bill, but we require the minister to report on whether community benefits were are going to support it with the view to getting it to committee so that achieved, so that we have some actual evaluation of whether all the we can amend it into a constructive and positive piece of legislation. money that the government is spending on public infrastructure is ● (1140) actually creating local jobs, providing apprenticeship opportunities, improving local communities, and improving our natural environ- Mr. Marc Miller (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of ment. We believe that this bill requires a lot more detail in terms of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased reporting and evaluation. to speak in support of Bill C-344, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, community benefit. Another issue that is very important to discuss is how this bill fits Bill C-344 would amend the Department of Public Works and with international trade agreements. The government has been very Government Services Act to provide the minister of public services aggressive in signing onto trade deals that limit the public sector's and procurement with the authority to require an assessment of the ability to use procurement policy to require local employment, the benefits that a community derives from a construction, maintenance, purchasing of local inputs, and that sort of thing. or repair project. Under the bill, the minister may require bidders on a contract to provide information on a project's community benefits. One of the questions that came up at committee with this bill's The minister may also request an assessment as to whether predecessor, Bill C-227, was whether it actually fit in with some of community benefits have been derived from a project. the trade deals that the government has signed. We have not gotten a very clear answer on this from the government, but I believe it is an Finally, the bill would require the minister to table an annual important question. I do not bring it up as an argument against report in Parliament on community benefits provided by construc- community benefit agreements. I think we want to pursue tion, maintenance, or repair projects. community benefit agreements, but we also want to make sure we [Translation] are not negotiating trade agreements that take away the ability of government to use procurement policy in that way. In simple terms, the goal of the bill is to ensure that taxpayer money invested in the repair and construction of federal infra- What I fear about this bill is that it actually contains so little that structure is used to produce useful local benefits, such as training, maybe it does comply with international trade agreements but it jobs, and environmental benefits. complies with them only because it requires so little of the government or of contractors. It is essentially totally up to the The goals of this bill are laudable and I encourage all members in minister whether to even require information on community benefits. the House to support it. It seems as though the bill may not actually apply to very much [English] infrastructure, if it is only those few projects that are entirely funded by the federal government. I hope the answer is not that this bill There are three compelling reasons for supporting this bill. The complies with international trade agreements because it does not first is that the government should use its spending power to create actually do anything and it does not require anything. jobs, promote economic growth, and foster a more prosperous society. Certainly, this is one of our government's priorities and is in Now, of course, we do have a number of trade agreements that keeping with the mandate of the Minister of Public Services and apply to infrastructure that is entirely funded by the federal Procurement. government. Where our country has more latitude to use procure- The minister was mandated to: ment policy in a constructive way is with provincial and municipal infrastructure. Fortunately, most infrastructure is indeed also funded Modernize procurement practices so that they are simpler, less administratively by those levels of government. However, the government does not burdensome, deploy modern comptrollership, and include practices that support our economic policy goals, including green and social procurement. seem to want to say that this bill would apply to those projects. Bill C-344 aligns squarely with these objectives. If enacted, Bill The NDP very much supports community benefit agreements. We C-344 would help support the government's effort in leveraging want to see public investment in infrastructure supporting jobs in procurement to advance social and green policies for the benefit of local communities, providing apprenticeship opportunities, improv- all Canadians. ing the local area, and supporting a clean environment. A way of [Translation] actually achieving that would be for the federal government to negotiate community benefit agreements in concert with provincial The second reason to support this bill is that the concept of and municipal governments for infrastructure projects that are jointly community benefits is already well established in the United funded. That would have an effect on a lot of infrastructure and Kingdom and the United States and is gaining popularity at the would also comply with international trade agreements. local and provincial levels here in Canada. Bill C-344 is a perfect opportunity for the federal government to show leadership and adopt Unfortunately, we are getting the suggestion from the government the concept of community benefits on behalf of the entire country. that this would only apply to those few projects that are totally For example, the concept of community benefits was applied in federally funded and, in that case, might not fit in with Canada's building the athletes’ village for the Vancouver 2010 Winter international trade obligations. Olympics. 12878 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Private Members' Business More recently, Ontario passed the Infrastructure for Jobs and economic prosperity of communities and businesses on both sides of Prosperity Act, 2015 and became the first province to include the border and is expected to create thousands of construction jobs in community benefits in provincial infrastructure projects, putting Ontario. In addition to the jobs created during the construction of the emphasis on hiring, training, and buying local. An excellent example project, the new bridge will result in many permanent jobs for the of the results of this approach is the construction of the Eglinton future operation of the crossing. As well, it is expected that Crosstown light rail line in Toronto, a public transit project worth thousands of jobs will be created in businesses that will supply several billion dollars that now includes an agreement regarding goods and raw materials for the project. community benefits. This is the opportune time to ensure that we are reinvesting in our As part of that initiative, provincial and municipal partners set the communities. By investing in the things that help make our objective that 10% of trade and craft hours required for the project neighbourhoods better places to live, like affordable housing, must be carried out by apprentices and journeypersons who live cultural institutions, and recreational facilities, we can build stronger along the public transit corridor and who have had difficulty finding neighbourhoods and communities that we are all proud to call home. work. The cost is the same, but part of the cost of labour is better directed to advance things on the social front. That project has the I have had the opportunity as Parliamentary Secretary to the possibility of changing the lives of young people, who will then be Minister of Infrastructure and Communities to go to different parts of able to obtain training or a job. the country and get full feedback from mayors and city councillors, ● (1145) some of the hardest-working people in the public service, and they [English] tell me how important it is to get local feedback and talk about the expertise that exists in those communities and to reflect the needs in At the same time, Bill C-344 would not impose much in the way our infrastructure projects. We know that the federal government of additional procedures on either the government or private sector cannot just walk in and invest without consulting and without talking suppliers. The bill does not call for changing the criteria in the to the provinces. Frankly, the expertise lies in a number of these tendering process. The minister's annual report to Parliament would projects. We rely on them and we need them, whether it is talking to simply provide an additional level of transparency and accountability provincial governments, talking to community leaders, talking to to Canadians as to how their money is being spent and the positive individuals as to what their needs are, or talking to our indigenous impact it is having on their communities. communities. These are key things, and this is part and parcel of Bill C-344. It fits perfectly within the framework we are creating to build Third, this bill is consistent with the approach of the investing in the 21st century. Canada plan. The Government of Canada is making historic new investments in infrastructure, more than doubling existing funding to ● (1150) build the cities of the 21st century and provide communities across the country with the tools they need to prosper and innovate. Our [Translation] historic investments are bringing about transformational change in our communities. By investing in infrastructure now, in the projects that Canada needs and in the men and women who can carry them out, we can An example of a project that brings great community benefit is the strengthen and grow the middle class and make Canada a better Champlain Bridge, which crosses into my riding. place to live. [Translation] I see Bill C-344 as another way of ensuring that federal The new Champlain Bridge corridor is one of the largest procurement helps the government obtain real benefits and results infrastructure projects in North America. In addition to ensuring the for Canadians and our communities. safety of users, the proposed corridor will create thousands of jobs in the greater Montreal area and foster economic growth in Canada by [English] improving the network's connectivity and the continuous and safe flow of people and goods. I would like to take the time to congratulate the sponsor of this [English] private member's bill, the member for Brampton Centre, for proposing a piece of legislation that is extremely difficult to argue Another great example is the Gordie Howe bridge. The against, particularly in light of his extreme advocacy in the Government of Canada is committed to the Gordie Howe community for the community benefits from any federal investment. international bridge, a strategic trade corridor with our country's The bill's underlying principles and objectives are laudable, and Bill most important economic partner. It is an example of the C-344 warrants the support of the House. infrastructure investments being made to help grow the economy, create good middle-class jobs, and enhance trade and productivity in Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I our local communities and across the country. am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-344, an act that would provide the minister with the authority to require an assessment of The Gordie Howe international bridge will encourage new the benefits a community would derive from a construction, investment between Canada and the United States and help to maintenance, or repair project. The bill's author, I am sure, has maintain and create thousands of jobs and opportunities on both good intentions behind bringing the bill forward, but we all know sides of the border. The new bridge is of vital importance to the where the road paved with good intention leads. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12879

Private Members' Business The practical considerations of federal procurement and the 10. Poorly written solicitations can cause confusion for suppliers effects of more regulations on small and medium enterprises when 11. Department's approach to soliciting proposals was not consistent with entering into the federal bidding process cannot be ignored. The government policy federal procurement process is one of the most complex processes in government. It takes months to finalize an RFP, solicit bids, modify 12. Was a supplier disadvantaged by an unreasonable criterion? the RFP, narrow down bidders, and negotiate a contract, all to finally 13. A mandatory criterion questioned accept a proposal that could very well be cancelled or delayed. I am not sure it would be possible to design a more convoluted system if 15. Excessive criteria for the work to be done? we tried, although it appears that the government has been working very hard to ensure that nothing surpasses it. The list goes on. I am not even halfway through. For example, the bid from Alenia Aermacchi North America 16. Department did not indicate the basis of selection to award a contract weighed some 2,700 kilograms, while Airbus Defence and Space 17. Compensation recommended for supplier whose bid was wrongfully rejected. needed a U-Haul to deliver 1,500 kilograms of documents to Public Services and Procurement Canada for the fixed-wing search and This goes back to who is deciding on a social benefit versus an rescue bid. Even with such a detailed RFP process, the government environmental benefit. has managed to get us sued for not providing proper information to the bidders. 18. Did the department adhere to the terms and conditions of the Standing Offer? One of the significant reasons federal procurement has become so 19. Are subject-matter experts required to evaluate proposals? complex is that politicians have seen fit to increase the number of 20. Supplier's bid wrongfully deemed non-compliant on the basis of undisclosed conditions required before a contract can be awarded. Some of the evaluation criteria conditions are to ensure greater financial transparency and are 21. Did a department act in a fair, open and transparent manner? objectively good and practically necessary to prevent corruption. However, some conditions, like those proposed in Bill C-344, are 22. Were suppliers discouraged from bidding and others given an advantage? well-intentioned but serve only to make a complicated process more 23. Evaluation criteria not applied as stated in the bid solicitation complex. It is one thing to propose that companies submit a community assessment as part of their bid, as per proposed 24. Did the department evaluate supplier bids using the same criteria? subsection 20.1(2) of the legislation, but it is completely another thing to allow such ambiguous power to sit with the minister. “The Again, there are no criteria set out in Bill C-344. Minister may...require bidders...to provide information”, it reads. It 25. Mandatory bid evaluation criteria not identified or applied appropriately: is not “always”, but “may”. It is not if the contract is this size or that Supplier compensated size. What better way to open this up to lawsuits than to give the This goes back to the Minister “may” ask for such information but minister such an undefined power? Who is to decide what is the best not always. social benefit? What parameters are to be used to decide if an 26. Did solicitation documents include contradictory wording? environmental benefit from one bidder is superior to another but provides no social benefit? Who decides if a slight social benefit ● (1155) outweighs a much lower price and therefore gets the contract? What 27. Was there a conflict of interest or unfair advantage in the award of the is to stop the government from using such vagueness for partisan contract? benefit? 30. Mandatory evaluation bid criteria based on operational requirements but the Here is a list of investigations of actual issues that have arisen and rationale not communicated have been published on the website of the Office of the Procurement 31. Department did not act in bad faith but need for better communication Ombudsman. There are 31 posted, and all but five concern issues that would be made worse by such undefined items in Bill C-344. What is the cost going to be for taxpayers? In the operations and They read: estimates committee, we asked both the deputy minister and the 1. Ombudsman recommends compensation to bidder who was treated unfairly associate deputy minister of Public Services and Procurement Canada if an analysis had been done of the effects of Bill C-344 on With Bill C-344, we would have an unclear process. costs from the added red tape and bureaucracy, etc. Shockingly, for a 2. Request for proposal with unclear estimates impacts a bidding process government that goes on ad nauseam about evidence-based decision- 3. Departmental delays impede a supplier’s ability to submit a bid making, neither had heard of Bill C-344, nor could they say if any 4. Were contractual obligations met by the federal organization? analysis had been done on possible effects on the procurement 6. The onus to demonstrate how a proposal meets the evaluation criteria... process. Again, that goes right back to Bill C-344 and its vagueness. 7. Organization properly awarded the contract, but may have unnecessarily Seeing as the minister is on leave and her fill-in has been AWOL limited the pool of potential suppliers on such issues as Phoenix, the fighter jet procurement disaster, and 8. Compensation recommended for a supplier whose proposal was improperly the Shared Services paper shredding scandal, it is no surprise to see rejected that this bill has had zero investigation into the ramifications. 12880 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Private Members' Business I am not the only who opposes adding bureaucratic red tape to a I rise today in support of Bill C-344, which would require an process that is already the gold standard for red tape. The Canadian assessment of the benefits that a community would derive from a Federation of Independent Business says: construction, maintenance, or repair project. This common sense Attempts by small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) to access federal legislation will have many benefits for Canadian communities. procurement are consistently hampered by a confusing application processes, excessive paperwork and a complex system of rules. One of the CFIBs suggestions was, “Make the procurement process an integral part of any red tape reduction initiative.” Note In 2015, we campaigned on historic infrastructure investments. that it did not say to please add to the red tape. The bill would add community benefit to the our investment and construction goals. The ministry already receives submissions on The practical considerations of more bureaucracy are very real. cost and time of construction, however, there is no policy that The procurement ombudsman states that one of the continuing requires contractors to assess what benefits a project would offer to problems is that the complexity of the system scares small and our communities. Bill C-344 would address this gap in the current medium-sized businesses away from engaging in federal procure- procurement policies. ment. In his 2015-16 annual report on procurement, the ombudsman noted examples of complaints from suppliers: Cumbersome and burdensome solicitations, more specifically the amount of paperwork and time required to respond to solicitations, act as disincentives for Bill C-344 also speaks to the triple bottom line, which I have suppliers. adopted, that emphasizes social, economic, and environmental Short bidding periods make it difficult for suppliers to respond to the often innovation. extensive requirements in solicitations.... Communications barriers or challenges, including in obtaining debriefs from federal organizations on the shortcomings of unsuccessful bids after the award of contracts or concerns about a perceived lack of details provided through debriefs.... Community benefit agreements are a new approach to empower- Delays in launching procurements, or lengthy procurement processes, are resulting in increased costs for suppliers and federal organizations. ing local communities to partner with developers in order to respond to local challenges. CBAs can be used to address economic Take each item and relate it to Bill C-344's effects on the process. I development and growth, but also poverty reduction and environ- cannot see how the legislation would make RFPs less cumbersome, mental sustainability in neighbourhoods across Canada. less expensive, or less extensive or provide more clarity. Again, Bill C-344 ignores the existing problems within procurement and will increase complaints from small businesses. The bill seeks to maximize the value of every public dollar As mentioned, Bill C-344 is vague in that it does not clearly invested in our communities. By requesting applicants to submit an define what constitutes a social, economic, or environmental benefit assessment on community benefits, the minister can make a much a community derives. more informed decision around community priorities. This problem of disincentives touches on another complaint heard by the procurement ombudsman, who noted that new businesses are unable or unwilling to break into the procurement market because of the substantial knowledge barrier to entry. Under this new system, the government can weigh the additional benefits each contractor will bring to the community, including I support small and medium-sized businesses and believe that the additional information such as jobs created during and after, government should be doing more to encourage SMEs to submit environmental benefit, and costs. The minister can move forward bids, create jobs, and grow our economy. Adding more requirements, with greater confidence that money is being invested wisely in our bureaucracy, and ill-defined powers are not ways to bring down communities. costs, simplify the process, and address the consistent concerns brought forward by businesses on the procurement process.

The minister's own mandate letter states: The economic gains of procurement are clear. Public Services and Modernize procurement practices so that they are simpler, less administratively Procurement Canada manages close to $15 billion in procurement on burdensome.... behalf of federal departments and agencies. These procurements Bill C-344 would move government procurement in the exact multiply economic opportunities and community benefits across the opposite direction. The government should read the Prime Minister's country through direct and indirect effects. own mandate letter to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and reject this bill. ● (1200) Crucially, close to 40% of our overall procurement business goes Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to small and medium-size enterprises, which are almost always local. to thank the hon. member for Brampton Centre for bringing forward Using figures from the last three years, 98% of construction his private member's legislation. contracts awarded in Ontario went to suppliers based in Ontario. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12881

Government Orders This policy will also incentivize private construction firms to (b) by replacing the initial text in section (4) with the following: “(4) The main think more broadly about their role in communities, and is in practice estimates to cover a given fiscal year for every department of government shall be deemed referred to standing committees on or before April 16 of that fiscal year. already with many municipalities. This approach offers an excellent Each such committee shall consider and shall report, or shall be deemed to have opportunity for businesses to increase the scope of their supply to reported, the same back to the House not later than June 10 of that fiscal year, include a focus on social innovation and environmental benefit. In provided that:” addition, the platform includes a proposal for federal infrastructure (c) by replacing in paragraphs (4)(a) and (b), projects as a means to ensure development of opportunities for I. the words “May 1” with the words “May 8”; veterans and other under-represented groups. II. each occurrence of the words “May 31” with the words “June 10”; (d) by replacing paragraph (4)(c) with the following: “(c) on the third sitting day Bill C-344 also offers an opportunity for Public Services and preceding the final allotted day, at not later than the ordinary hour of daily Procurement Canada to engage in work with municipalities. No one adjournment, the said committee shall report, or shall be deemed to have reported, appreciates and understands the diverse and unique needs of the main estimates for the said department or agency; and”; communities better than the people who live there. (e) in section (5) I. by adding after the word “immediately” the word “after”; Canadians require a procurement process that works for them and II. by replacing the word “censé” in the French version with the word “réputé”; reflects their values. Alongside transparency and accountability, (f) by adding a new section (6) to read as follows: “(6) Interim estimates shall be procurement can fulfill economic, social, and environmental deemed referred to a standing committee or committees immediately after they are benefits. Bill C-344 is an opportunity for Canadians to get the most presented in the House. Each such committee shall consider and shall report, or out of their tax dollars, ensuring tax dollars work for them. shall be deemed to have reported, the same back to the House not later than three sitting days before the final sitting or the last allotted day in the period ending not I again thank the member for Brampton Centre for bringing later than March 26.”; and forward the bill. (g) by deleting the words “or interim supply” in section (21). 4. That the following sections be added after Standing Order 104.(4): The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Guelph will have six “(5) In addition to the members named pursuant to section (1) of this Standing minutes remaining in his time for his remarks when the House next Order, the Chief Government Whip may, at any time, file with the clerk of any returns to debate on the question. standing, special or legislative committee a notification indicating that one or more Parliamentary Secretaries shall serve as non-voting members of the The time provided for the consideration of private members' committee. The Parliamentary Secretaries shall have all of the rights and business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of privileges of a committee member, but may not vote or move any motion, nor be the order of precedence on the Order Paper. part of any quorum. (6)(a) A Minister of the Crown cannot be appointed to or cannot act as a substitute on any standing, legislative or special committee. (b) A Parliamentary Secretary cannot be appointed to any standing, legislative or GOVERNMENT ORDERS special committee, except as provided for in section (5) of this Standing Order.” 5. That the following subsections be added after Standing Order 114.(2)(d): ● (1205) “(e) In relation to Parliamentary Secretaries named pursuant to Standing Order [English] 104(5), the Chief Government Whip may effect a substitution of one Parliamentary Secretary for another by filing notice thereof with the clerk of AMENDMENTS TO STANDING ORDERS the committee and such a substitution shall be effective immediately when it is received by the clerk of the committee. Hon. Bardish Chagger (Leader of the Government in the (f) A Parliamentary Secretary named as a non-voting member of a committee House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and pursuant to Standing Order 104(5) shall not be eligible to act as a substitute for a Tourism, Lib.) moved: member of that committee.” That the Standing Orders of the House of Commons be amended as follows: 6. That Standing Order 114.(3) be replaced with the following: 1. That the following section be added after Standing Order 32. (6): “(3) Changes in the membership of any legislative committee shall be effective “(7) Not later than twenty sitting days after the beginning of the second or immediately after notification thereof, signed by the Chief Whip of any subsequent session of a Parliament, a Minister of the Crown shall lay upon the recognized party, has been filed with the clerk of the committee. Substitutions Table a document outlining the reasons for the latest prorogation. This document may be made in the same manner prescribed in section (2) of this Standing shall be deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Order.” Affairs immediately after it is presented in the House.” 7. That Standing Order 116 be replaced with the following: 2. That the following new Standing Order be added after Standing Order 69. “(1) In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall “69.1(1) In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more apply so far as may be applicable, except the Standing Orders as to the election of than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various a Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power length of speeches. to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second (2)(a) Unless a time limit has been adopted by the committee or by the House, the reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage Chair of a standing, special or legislative committee may not bring a debate to an of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill end while there are members present who still wish to participate. A decision of thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of the Chair in this regard may not be subject to an appeal to the committee. clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage. (b) A violation of paragraph (a) of this section may be brought to the attention of “69.1(2) The present Standing Order shall not apply if the bill has as its main the Speaker by any Member and the Speaker shall have the power to rule on the purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were matter. If, in the opinion of the Speaker, such violation has occurred, the Speaker announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the may order that all subsequent proceedings in relation to the said violation be budget presentation.” nullified.” 3. That Standing Order 81 be amended as follows: That Standing Order 81 as amended take effect on September 18, 2017, and (a) by replacing each occurrence of the words “interim supply” in sections (3) and remain in effect for the duration of the current Parliament; (17), and in paragraph (14)(a), with the following: “interim estimates”; That the other Standing Orders as amended take effect on September 18, 2017; 12882 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Government Orders That the Clerk of the House be authorized to make any required editorial and question period to improve the level of direct accountability; end the consequential alterations to the Standing Orders, including to the marginal notes; and improper use of prorogation and omnibus bills; provide better That the Clerk of the House be instructed to print a revised edition of the Standing parliamentary oversight of taxpayer dollars; and, strengthen Orders of the House. parliamentary committees so that parliamentary secretaries do not She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about our have a vote on committee. government's commitment to strengthen and improve Parliament. We believe Canadians cherish the House of Commons, the very heart of our democracy. We believe that what happens in this place, how we conduct ourselves, how we debate legislation, and how we hold On election day in October 2015, Canadians made their decision the government to account is central to our country's democratic on the type of government and Parliament they wanted in Ottawa. health. The result was clear: Canadians elected a government with a ● (1210) mandate to strengthen Parliament. The Prime Minister is committed to making that happen. The people who sent us here deserve to know we are doing our best to serve in their best interest and to make them proud of the work we are doing on behalf of them. They deserve to know that as their elected representatives, we are working together to put our It is important to note the instructions he has given me in my country's interests first. Simply put, our constituents should be mandate letter, which states: assured that we will all fight together for their interests. Those debates can often be drawn along clear and robust partisan lines, and that is good. This is part of what creates good public policy. As Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, your overarching goal At the same time, it is crucial that all of us find ways to will be to make Parliament relevant again and to ensure that Canadians once again have a real voice in Ottawa. Parliamentarians must have the information and the collectively maintain and strengthen the political institution where freedom to do their most important jobs: represent their constituents and hold the we debate our differences, our perspectives, and most important, the government to account. It is your job to help empower all Members of Parliament to voices of our constituents. Indeed, the rules and conventions that fulfill these essential responsibilities. govern this place date back through generations of our predecessors, and we have all done well by them. However, there can always be improvements. We can always [Translation] modernize. We can always do better. Today, it is time to do just that. We are here to debate our government's proposed motion to reform and modernize the Standing Orders in several key areas. ● (1215) Before going any further, I would like to insist on the fact that this [Translation] is our main goal. Our intention is to give powers to members on both sides of the House. We want to give them the tools they need to be In this discussion, it is important to emphasize the reasons why able do the work for which they were elected. We want to ensure that these changes are needed and how they can serve to strengthen the the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers are more accountable to the House of Commons over the decades to come. House. It is also important to emphasize how attached we are to implementing new practices, such as the Prime Minister's question period, which will contribute to making our government and future [English] governments more accountable to Canadians. [English]

As background, I would like to remind colleagues of some of the As I have often stated in this place, I welcome the views of my steps that have brought us here today. colleagues. I have engaged in good-faith discussions with my Two years ago, as Canadians were preparing to cast their ballot in Conservative and NDP counterparts about our approach to the the general election, the Liberal Party released its campaign specific reforms we have put forward. These were helpful platform. That platform promised real change and pledged to give discussions. Indeed, throughout both the public discourse we Canadians a voice in Ottawa. witnessed this spring, and more recently in my conversations with my counterparts, I listened carefully. Now, Canadians expect us to The platform stated: act. We have a plan on how to strengthen Parliament. It is reasonable For Parliament to work best, its members must be free to do what they have been and it is based on our mandate from Canadians. elected to do: represent their communities and hold the government to account. Government must always stay focused on serving Canadians and solving their problems. The following are among the specific promises that were made in First, let me address the changes to the Standing Orders in four the platform that we committed to: introduce a prime minister's areas. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12883

Government Orders With respect to the prorogation of Parliament, which signifies the committee members, but they cannot vote or move a motion, nor can end of a session and can occur with justification during a mandate, they be part of the count for quorum or act as a substitute for a there have been times in the past that governments have improperly member on a committee on which they have been named a non- prorogued early to avoid politically difficult situations. If that voting member. happens again in future, Canadians deserve a formal explanation in Parliament. Under the change, the government must table a document outlining the reasons for prorogation within 20 sitting days of the next session of Parliament. That document must justify the government's decision to end a parliamentary session. The That is a summary of the changes to the Standing Orders that we document would be deemed referred to the Standing Committee on propose. Procedure and House Affairs. This change will build accountability into Parliament. Our government is committed to ending the improper use of omnibus legislation. I am not speaking here of responsibly drafted I would like now to turn my attention to another matter that we budget implementation bills that contain changes stemming directly also believe is important: the Prime Minister's question period, from the budget; rather, I am referring to what should happen when a PMQP. Our Prime Minister is firmly committed to being more government introduces a non-budget omnibus bill that contains accessible to all members of Parliament in question period. This is entirely separate and unrelated themes. We want to ensure that MPs why, this spring, he took the historic step of initiating a prime are not faced with the dilemma of how to vote on a bill that is most minister's question period, in which he answered all of the questions supportable but contains a totally unrelated clause, a poison pill, that asked on Wednesdays. This special question period is in addition to they find objectionable. We want flexibility for MPs in these the other days of the week when he attends the regular question instances. Under the proposed change, the Speaker would have the period to answer questions with his cabinet ministers. authority to divide bills for the purpose of voting for second reading, third reading, and passage of a bill. The Speaker would also be authorized to group a bill thematically. There would be a single debate at each stage, and members would then be able to vote on So far, our Prime Minister has attended six special question parts of a bill separately. periods on Wednesdays, answering a total of 233 questions from With respect to estimates, members of Parliament are responsible members of Parliament on those six days alone. We have shown it for keeping track of how the government intends to spend the can be done. We now have made it our practice that when the Prime public's money, yet the financial accounting system they are Minister is here on Wednesday, he takes all the questions, and we currently expected to use is inconsistent and incomplete. We need will continue that practice. Let me make one thing clear. The Prime a better way. We want to better align the budget and estimates Minister's question period is here to stay under this government. Just process so that the data means something and is truly relevant and as it became the convention and not something codified in the timely for colleagues, resulting in better informed decision-making. Standing Orders in the United Kingdom, it is our endeavour that it will become the convention here. ● (1220) [Translation] Our motion proposes changing the date on which the main estimates are tabled from March 1 to April 16. The date on which the In closing, I invite members to support our proposals for estimates should be sent to the House by the relevant committee strengthening Parliament. We promised Canadians two year ago would move from May 31 to June 10. Pushing back the dates will that we would make these changes. Canadians gave us a mandate to ensure that the estimates more appropriately reflect the budget and do so. They gave us a mandate to act. It is time to work together and will allow members to conduct a more detailed review. This will make our Parliament stronger. allow Parliament to provide better oversight. [English] Our government believes strongly that committees provide the ● (1225) backbone of much of the work that is done in Parliament. It is there that MPs can do some of their best work, scrutinizing legislation and hearing the views of experts, stakeholders, and Canadians at large. Indeed, it is at the committee stage where proposed legislation can be improved and members from all parties can constructively work Hon. Candice Bergen (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, together toward that end. my hon. colleague and I have been working together on a number of issues over the last number of months and although I disagree with We believe there is a role for parliamentary secretaries to be the process and much of what she has done, I recognize the hard members of committees. As link to ministers, they can provide work that she has put into all of this. My question for the House insight and great assistance to other committee members as well. leader is very broad. I will talk a little later about the specific Under our proposed changes, parliamentary secretaries can be proposals. 12884 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Government Orders The Conservatives' biggest criticism was the way the government ● (1230) handled this and said that, whether there was a consensus or not, it would be making these changes. My question for the government House leader is very simple. When things change and the Conservatives are on that side and the Liberals are on this side, Hon. Bardish Chagger: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the does she wish to be treated in the way that she treated the member responded to the discussion paper that I had shared in good opposition? Does she think that the Conservatives would then have faith and endeavoured to have some tough conversations on it. I the ability to make major changes to the Standing Orders and ram appreciate the work she has done on this file. We have also made them through the House of Commons, whether the opposition certain that the member will be able to participate in this meaningful specifically likes it or not? Does she wish to be treated in the way she debate because we know that she shares perspectives and points of treated us? view that need to be raised in this place.

Hon. Bardish Chagger: Mr. Speaker, as I have said always, my door is open. Hindsight is always 20/20. Were there ways that we could improve the process if all members could agree to work better I believe that there is still much work to do. This is a step. These together? We have demonstrated that we are able to work together. are the commitments we made to Canadians that we are advancing We have been having good, tough conversations and I can assure all on. I believe the procedure and House affairs committee can colleagues that I will continue to keep my door open. I will continue continue this good work. I know it has started some work and it can to advance the mandate Canadians gave us about working better broaden that scope, should the members of that committee wish to together. That is something I heard on doorsteps. I believe all do so. members can work better together and will definitely play my part in helping to make that happen. Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I too would Mr. David de Burgh Graham (Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.): like to congratulate the government House leader for her speech and Mr. Speaker, the minister and I both served as staff in previous acknowledge the hard work that she has provided in recent months. parliaments and I think we have all been around to see some of the In her opening remarks, she talked of “working together to put our very interesting things that have happened here over the years. When country's interests first”, and in her mandate letter there is also talk of I read this motion, I see a whole lot of things that would have helped working “with Opposition House Leaders”. Therefore, is the us when we were in opposition and not a lot that would help us here government House leader now committed to only changing Standing in government. I wonder if the minister would agree with that Orders in the future, the very rules of how our democracy functions, assessment: this would help this place function by empowering where there is multi-party support for the changes proposed; or does opposition parties to do their jobs better. she still think that her government can amend these rules unilaterally?

Hon. Bardish Chagger: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to thank Hon. Bardish Chagger: Mr. Speaker, the opposition plays an the member for his hard work. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we essential role and the government has a responsibility to act on the have been working very closely together and we have had some mandate that it is given. This is about empowering all members of fruitful, meaningful conversations and I sincerely appreciate that. I Parliament. Every member of Parliament was elected by his or her know we can work better in this place. It will always be my constituents to ensure that their voices were heard in this place. That endeavour to have those tough conversations and to keep my door is the vision behind everything I do. I believe that we need to ensure open. I do believe that we can always find a way to represent our that the voices of our constituents, of Canadians, are heard in this constituents. The perspectives that every member brings and that place. It is something we committed to in the election campaign. It is every role in this place brings are essential to the democratic process something that Canadians received very well. This place belongs to and to the health of our democracy. That is why I will always the people, so I believe the motion before us would strengthen every endeavour to work better together. member of Parliament through the important work that members are elected to do. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, there are many comments I would wish to make and, as the government House leader knows, I have submitted some substantial proposals, including for prorogation. We test the confidence of the Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, House in an actual vote in the House. I am glad to see prorogation CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have two brief questions for the government dealt with. The approach that was advanced in my paper came not House leader. from me but from some of Canada's leading political scientists including Hugo Cyr, Peter Russell, and so on. I also proposed on omnibus bills—and it is an improvement to be able to split them— for studying them, not merely for voting on them. Is there an First, Bill C-49 is a wide-ranging transportation modernization opportunity in the debate we are going to have in the next several act, so called. Bill C-51 is a very wide-ranging Criminal Code days only, to actually achieve consensus from all sides of this House change. I wonder if the government House leader thinks either, or on the changes that are now proposed? both, of these constitutes improper uses of omnibus legislation. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12885

Government Orders Second, I want to ask about the powers given to parliamentary It is important. The commitments we made to Canadians in our secretaries because now, the way the Standing Order change is set election platform came from when this party was in the third official up, a committee could theoretically bar members of Parliament who status of this place. We know that under the previous Stephen Harper are not members of the committee from attending in camera Conservative government there was an abuse of omnibus legislation. meetings. That would mean they would have additional members of We know that we need to improve the way we can work together so the government who are parliamentary secretaries who are able to that members of Parliament can actually advance the voices of their remain in the room, but they would have other members of constituents, and that is the goal here. Parliament who might be interested in the discussion who cannot be in the room. Does the government House leader see a problem with that? Would the government House leader agree that any member of Parliament who wants to listen in to an in camera discussion if he or We have had good faith conversation amongst the recognized she is an elected member of Parliament, regardless of whether the parties to ensure those voices are heard and to ensure that we have a member is a parliamentary secretary, should be able to do so? motion before us that we can work together to improve. I will continue keeping my door open and having those tough conversa- Hon. Bardish Chagger: Mr. Speaker, these are exactly the kinds tions to really modernize this place, and to ensure members are able of discussions and conversations I was hoping to have when I to represent their constituents. released the discussion paper. I do believe that there are perspectives and opinions that members have to share, and can share, that would benefit this place and the work that all members of Parliament do. The Deputy Speaker: Before we go to resuming debate and the In regard to the legislation the member is referring to, that is why hon. opposition House leader, I will just make just a clarification. we are saying we should provide the ability to the Speaker in this chamber to divide legislation by votes, so that members will not have to determine their support of legislation in regard to an item that is not along the same themes. We know that we need to improve Earlier when I was presenting today's motion to the House, the the way we function in this place, and that is the endeavour and will hon. member for St. Catharines and others were prompting that I always be the goal. perhaps dispense with the reading of all of the details. In fact, for When it comes to parliamentary secretaries, we know that the clarification purposes, I could have accepted that suggestion in the parliamentary secretaries have access to a lot of information. We case of such a lengthy motion. The motion is actually printed, of have seen committees do the important work that they are doing. If a course, in the Order Paper for today, which can be made reference to. parliamentary secretary can provide insight and information to We could have proceeded in the usual pace to seek the consent of the members of a committee to help them do their work, I believe that is House to dispense with the motion. Perhaps I should have done that. essential to the process. That is why this is a step in the right Nonetheless, it is a matter of history now. direction. Hon. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the government House leader for her speech, but it was Resuming debate. certainly dripping with irony. She said that omnibus legislation would never deal with unrelated themes, yet she had us in the House last week on a justice omnibus Hon. Candice Bergen (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, bill. I guess she is saying that witchcraft and duelling are related to what a long road we have travelled to get here. The process leading some of the criminal procedure changes that were in that omnibus us to today's motion has been a long and very frustrating struggle. It legislation. was a struggle where the opposition was forced to mitigate the excesses of a careless and arrogant government, a government The government House leader's deputy, the member for Winnipeg devoid of any appreciation for what Parliament actually does, a North, called omnibus legislation in the last Parliament “an assault government that insulted the House and dismissed the role of on the House of Commons”, much like the omnibus bills we have members who sit in opposition to it. been seeing in this House. The assault in the last few weeks has been with time allocation, omnibus legislation, and now the speech on Standing Orders today. The process has been a sham from the beginning, despite the My question for the government House leader is quite simple. assertions that we have been hearing about a conversation, a Given the platitudes in elements of her speech, does she have any dialogue, and working better together. Over the weeks and months of personal regret for the time allocation and omnibus legislation we question period, the House has heard the full word salad from the have been debating and voting on in the last few weeks, based on government trying to defend and excuse its approach to Parliament, a where she wants to see the Standing Orders go? bunch of jargon and buzzwords tossed together with very little ● (1235) substance and very little weight. Given the way the Prime Minister Hon. Bardish Chagger: Mr. Speaker, we were elected to this has handled this whole issue and refused for months to acknowledge place to do important work. All members of Parliament have a the need for all-party support, Conservatives will be voting against responsibility to ensure they are representing their constituents. the motion. 12886 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Government Orders Let me take a few moments to review just how we managed to get committee meetings, opposition MPs led the fight against the Liberal here. On March 10, a Friday afternoon, just before we started our discussion paper. March constituency week, the government House leader posted on her website a so-called discussion paper. The House will recall that ● (1240) this Liberal discussion paper proposed, among other things, to reduce the opportunity for members to hold the government to I have to give credit to the three Conservative MPs who are account by eliminating Friday sittings, automatically time-allocating members of that committee, the hon. members for Lanark— all bills, preventing the opposition from triggering debates on Frontenac—Kingston, Banff—Airdrie, and Haliburton—Kawartha committee reports, and bringing sharp closure changes to committee. Lakes—Brock. However, it was not just them; this really was a team It was a shocking set of ideas to think about. Since it was less than a effort, and 29 Conservative members of Parliament participated at year since we had witnessed the Motion No. 6 fiasco, it was sadly that committee. par for the course with the government. The primary driving force for the Prime Minister has been to alter the balance between the In parallel to the committee proceedings, the NDP House leader opposition and the government by taking away the protections that and I offered a constructive alternative to the government. We the rules offer. suggested that the House set up a special committee with one member from each party, chaired by our impartial Deputy Speaker, The Globe and Mail in an editorial at the time called out the to work on a consensus basis in reviewing our procedures and Prime Minister on his ideas and I quote: proposing improvements. [The] government considers the opposition’s limited arsenal to be “tactics which seek only to undermine and devalue the important work of Parliament,” and which “sow dysfunction” and are not “rational” or “defensible,” according to a discussion What we proposed was hardly revolutionary. Pierre Trudeau's paper.... government set up the Lefebvre committee, which recommended Those contentions are cynical bunk. The...government is hawking a utopian several changes to the Standing Orders, such as bringing in the first vision of Parliament, in which members from different parties politely discuss the time limits to bell ringing, which were adopted unanimously. government’s proposed legislation on a schedule set by mutual agreement, and there are cheers all around when the House enacts laws that are a perfect reflection of the selfless compromises agreed to in a collegial fashion on committees and in the Brian Mulroney's government set up the McGrath committee. House.... That group tabled three reports, all adopted unanimously, on a whole There are just sunny ways passing beneath crisp rainbows. range of topics, such as giving our standing committees permanent mandates to study topics on their own initiative. They are sunny ways indeed. Had this discussion paper simply been just that when it was published, it would have been read, Under Jean Chrétien, a special committee on the modernization critiqued, and actually discussed with the flaws being pointed out and improvement of the procedures of the House of Commons was and the interesting ideas build upon. However, that is not at all what created. That committee codified the pattern of goodwill to its rules happened. with an express requirement for reports to be adopted unanimously. Later that afternoon, the government House leader's colleague Far from that being a veto—and remember that this was back in the gave notice of motion at the Standing Committee on Procedure and days of five recognized parties—the committee managed to adopt six House Affairs to have the discussion paper studied, with everything reports. wrapped up and recommendations made by June 2. Had the motion at committee simply been a proposal to add the discussion paper to Most recently, Stephen Harper's government followed the its study of the Standing Orders, it would have been a natural idea tradition of the unanimity approach, not bringing in permanent and hard to object to. However, that is not what happened. The procedural amendments with out all-party support. writing was on the wall. All of the ideas in the discussion paper, which coincidentally all were to the benefit of the Prime Minister, Those governments proved that reforming Parliament can be done would be rammed through. with a co-operative approach. The results were substantive, and they significantly strengthened the role members play in this place. Let us fast forward to the procedural and House affairs committee on March 21. The Liberals wanted to pass their motion right away. Indeed, I know the procedure and House affairs committee would The hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston offered an have been up to that task. From following their debates, and from amendment to observe the long-standing tradition around here of joining them for a night, I know that the members from all parties using all-party consensus to change our rules. The Liberals, to their handled the task in front of them with civility and good cheer. They credit, quickly signalled their disagreement with that perfectly would have handled such a review in a professional and capable reasonable amendment. fashion. We were faced with a completely transparent plan from the Liberals to ram these awful ideas through the House. We simply Sadly, it was quite clear that the Liberals on the committee were would not allow this to happen. As a result, we had to stop this under firm instructions from the Prime Minister's Office not to let reckless Liberal power grab from getting rammed through, so we their members' own better judgment carry the day. Indeed, far from used one of the very few tools available to opposition parties, the one being co-operative and far from her repeated claim to have an open that the Liberals actually had wanted to remove, and that is the door, the government House leader left the other House leaders ability to filibuster. Over some six weeks with more than 80 hours of hanging. For weeks on end, our letter to her went unanswered. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12887

Government Orders In addition to a committee filibuster and good faith proposals from did not look like he was having fun Wednesday, when he was the opposition parties, here in the chamber the opposition parties pummelled for the entire Question Period on topics ranging from the used many of the tools available to us to register our unhappiness big issues of the day—Chinese takeovers, rising debt levels—to and our frustration. The Liberal government desperately tried to get more arcane subjects like potentially illegal activity at Shared back on track, even shutting down a privilege debate and preventing Services Canada and autism funding.” it from coming to a vote. The hon. member for Perth—Wellington called out the government on this, and the Chair ruled that what the It is obvious that Liberal bigwigs decided that their leader's Liberal government had done was entirely without precedent. The performance was actually a liability to the Liberal Party. His Speaker wisely and bravely ruled, allowing the privilege debate to performance in question period specifically was a liability to the start anew. Liberal Party. If anything, the Liberals' last-minute withdrawal of Finally, admitting that the Prime Minister was staring at the risk of this proposal only highlights the fact that the government's approach a total paralysis of his parliamentary agenda, the government House to procedural reforms has been guided solely by Liberal partisan leader finally answered the letter that the hon. member for Victoria interests. They only want to do it if it is in their interest. That has and I had sent her. In that letter she indicated that the Liberals were been made very obvious by their rather rapid withdrawal of a Prime backing away from their discussion paper, but would be pressing Minister's question period. ahead regardless of the opposition parties' thoughts with items referenced in the Liberal election platform. Of course, the Prime Minister's good friend, Gerry Butts, was on Twitter Friday claiming that there would never be standing order The opposition cannot claim complete credit for the Liberal amendments to create a Prime Minister's question period. To further backdown. I suspect the Liberal House leader may have been under his alternative facts, the PMO principal secretary then claimed that considerable pressure from her own caucus colleagues. Though the Standing Orders were entirely silent on question period. I guess caucus meetings are confidential, I believe that we witnessed the tip he obviously had not read Standing Order 37, for example, with the of the iceberg when the hon. member for Malpeque, a veteran of this big headline above it of “Oral Questions”. House, offered this in debate on April 11: ...this place is called the House of Commons for a reason. It is not the House of Setting that aside, in her response to written Question No. 1022 cabinet or the House of PMO. Protecting the rights of members in this place, whether it is the opposition members in terms of the stance they are taking, is also tabled Friday afternoon, the government House leader said, “The protecting the rights of the other members here who are not members of cabinet or motion will refer to the commitments made in the platform during the government. We talk about government as if this whole side is the the election in relation to...increasing accountability in question government. The government is the executive branch. We do need to protect these period.” rights. Here we stand today debating government Motion No. 18. The House leader also testified on Thursday afternoon at the ● (1245) procedural and House affairs committee, where she again reiterated that the Prime Minister's question period would be in the motion. First let me talk about something that we all expected to be in this Just a few hours later, though, her words did not match up to her motion. The headline proposal in every Liberal statement this spring notice of motion, with the Prime Minister's question period being about the Standing Orders was that there was going to be a dedicated noticeably absent. Prime Minister's question period. We heard a lot about that. The Prime Minister was gung-ho and looking forward to having to We can only conclude that this was a very hasty, last-minute show up to work for just 45 minutes every week. The Prime Minister change of heart from the Liberals, likely following last Wednesday's was going to show us just how well he could memorize his lines and flop by the Prime Minister. put on a Broadway-worthy performance with dramatic delivery. He may even have put his hand on his heart a time or two. Now that I have spoken about what is not in this motion, let me turn to what actually is in government Motion No. 18. We all saw how that experiment unfolded. The Prime Minister quickly saw that his glib platitudes did not give satisfying answers On prorogation, the Liberals wanted to prevent governments from on the concerns of Canadians, the problems facing our economy, or abusing this routine constitutional procedure. One way to do that is his ethical lapses. It quickly became crystal clear to everyone that the to promise not to abuse it and then follow through on that promise. Prime Minister failed to perform and bombed terribly. That would be the good, old-fashioned approach of integrity. Remember the Wednesday when the Prime Minister was asked 18 times if he had met with the Ethics Commissioner? That was May Instead, the government proposes that after prorogation, the 10. government would be obliged to table its reasons, or its excuses, when Parliament reconvenes. Basically, that means that from this Although I cannot and I will not refer to the presence or absence time forward, governments can table the press release that it puts out of a member, I can say that the House did not hear another when it announces prorogation. That is really all this change will do. Wednesday answer from the Prime Minister until June 7. John Ivison wrote just this past Thursday about the most recent This amendment makes no sense. It is meaningless. The Prime Prime Minister's question period, noting that the Prime Minister “... Minister should be embarrassed to put it on the Standing Orders. 12888 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Government Orders With respect to the Liberal pledge on omnibus bills, we see time available for scrutiny of spending proposals, because we all something even more ridiculous and absurd. The Liberal proposal to know how much the Liberals love to spend. end omnibus abuse exempts budget bills, the very bills the Liberals used to complain about. When we look at Bill C-44, which just Last fall the Liberals were quite itchy to get these changes through passed, we see that it is little wonder the Liberals are trying to have the government operations and estimates committee, but we their cake and eat it too. managed to put the brakes on these hasty, bad changes. For that, I want to recognize the good work of our Treasury Board critic, the On the other hand, for the few bills the rule might possibly apply, hon. member for Brantford—Brant, and his colleagues on that really nothing will change at all. There will be a few extra votes in committee, the hon. members for Beauport—Limoilou and Edmon- the House, but no more debate would be held. ton West.

● (1250) We were hardly doing this just be stubborn or obstructionist. The real concern is that the Prime Minister will become more Outside observers, including none other than our parliamentary aggressive with omnibus bills. Sheltering under this half-baked budget officer, pointed out concerns with the government's reform, omnibus bills will be encouraged. The Liberals can claim optimistic plans. In November the parliamentary budget officer that they will be absolved of any fault, because they have changed published a report explaining the promise of the President of the the rules. This is absolute rubbish. It is not hard to imagine the Treasury Board. The PBO had this to say: Liberals taking us to a place where we will soon see things like a With respect to delaying the main estimates, the Government indicates that the throne speech implementation act, with everything thrown into one core impediment in aligning the budget and estimates arises from the Government’s bill and just a lot of votes to follow. It is actually very worrisome. own sclerotic internal administrative processes, rather than parliamentary timelines. However, we should not worry; they say there will be three votes He went on to say: instead of one. This example [of last year's supplementary estimates] shows that it is unlikely that delaying the release of the main estimates by eight weeks would provide full In short, the proposals on prorogation and omnibus bills are so alignment with the budget. cynical that they are just jokes, plain and simple. His predecessor, Kevin Page, penned an op-ed in The Globe and The next item is not as cynical, and it may even have some merit. Mail, which also poured cold water on the Liberal plan. Kevin Page However, to be successful, it requires the Liberal cabinet to follow said: through on a promise. Given their record on keeping promises, I How does that improve financial control? ... If you start from the perspective of have my doubts. financial control, Parliament should see the fiscal plan...before April 1. Without getting into a lot of technical detail, government Motion Therefore, this is not just us expressing concerns. There were a No. 18 tweaks a number of aspects about the scrutiny process for the number of other esteemed individuals who expressed concern with main estimates. For Canadians not familiar with what the estimates the government's plan. are, they are the proposals that lead to Parliament's authorization for government spending. More recently, the PBO, in reviewing the spring supplementary estimates, offered this skeptical take, noting his analysis: The government wanted to achieve a better alignment of the ● (1255) budget and the main estimates. As a matter of principle, ...demonstrates the [Treasury Board] Secretariat is further away from its goal in Conservatives do not object to this idea. However, the challenge 2017-18, rather than closer to it. This raises a significant question of whether the lies in implementation, especially the timing. Government's proposal to delay the main estimates would result in meaningful alignment with the budget. Essentially there are two ways to address the timing issues: budgets could be presented earlier or the estimates could be Basically, the Liberal government was saying to trust them on presented later. The government wants flexibility in when budgets improving the estimates and wanted Parliament to agree to this are presented, given fluctuating events. That is fair enough, since the change up front, while the evidence of the government's ability to do previous Conservative government also insisted on the same thing its part was completely unconvincing. when similar proposals were floated by committee five years ago. By standing firm through tough negotiations over the winter and However, last fall the President of the Treasury Board published spring, Conservatives reined in these Liberal efforts to slash his own discussion paper on this very issue. He called for a accountability. permanent change to the Standing Orders that would reduce the three months currently available to study the main estimates down to 30 The amendment set out in government Motion No. 18 is now a days. The Treasury Board president had been promoting this reform, two-year experiment, providing two months of committee study, effectively saying that it would give us great documents—so great, twice the amount that the Treasury Board president had originally apparently, that there really would not need to be time for proposed. By insisting on a sunset clause for this change, parliamentary oversight. Conservatives have ensured we can take an evidence-based decision after the 2019 election on whether the information made available to Well, hold on. While recognizing the merits of aligning budgets parliamentarians truly does improve leading to a reasonable trade-off and estimates, the Conservative Party does not want to sacrifice the with losing a month of scrutiny. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12889

Government Orders The ball is now in the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board ● (1300) president's court. Given the government's record, I am not holding my breath. We had an early foretaste of this with the infamous Motion Six... That alone ought to have signalled how sincere [the Prime Minister]’s frequent protests of his devotion Finally, there is the amendment that will prevent ministers from to democratic accountability are: as calculated, as fake—and as useful!—as his feminism. sitting on committees. However, it will allow parliamentary secretaries to be ex officio members of committees, with all Well now the Liberals are back, with a new, more attack-proof House Leader... privileges except the ability to vote or to constitute quorum. They may participate at in camera meetings, question witnesses, and travel. Parliamentary secretaries will maintain practically every tool, That brings me to the current government House leader. except an actual vote, to shape and steer committee work. I truly believe the hon. member for Waterloo is very well- Liberal parliamentary secretaries have continued to attend intentioned, but she has been set by the Prime Minister for failure, as committees, and in some cases strive to shape the committee's work a rookie parliamentarian, in taking on the important role as House and decisions. This proposal would only further entrench their ability leader and all that it entails, while at the same time picking this fight. to do this, while claiming to honour platform commitments. How very clever. Veteran parliamentary observer Chantal Hébert recently penned If the Prime Minister has concluded that parliamentary secretaries her observations on a pattern of, as she said, “Rookie ministers are important to committee work, the Liberals should just admit that turned into cannon fodder”. I will read from her recent column. It is and assign them Liberal seats at committees. extremely relevant and a very clear example. She has articulated very clearly what we are seeing the Prime Minister do with his rookie The Liberal caucus has dozens of backbenchers with multiple MPs, specifically women MPs, sadly. The article stated: committee assignments. This arrangement may work in the current majority context, but in a minority situation it could become quite an [The hon. member for Waterloo] is the first woman to occupy this strategic unsustainable burden on any government backbench when 70 or so government position [House leader]. She also brings to the role less hands-on office-holders would go without any committee assignments and 50 experience in the Commons than any of her predecessors. to 80 MPs would have to cover 24 standing committees, plus two To be able to read the mood of the House is an essential skill for one in [her] joint committees and any special committees. I do not know if the position. It is also a skill usually acquired over time. government has thought this through, especially if it does find itself in a minority situation at some point. As parliamentary neophyte, [she] would have had her hands full just keeping the government’s legislative agenda on track. Yet, shortly after her appointment she was A similar arrangement whereby parliamentary secretaries could tasked with implementing a controversial set of parliamentary reforms. Included in not sit on committees that were related to their department was the government’s unilateral wish list were measures that would have curtailed some of the few procedural tools at the disposal of an opposition minority. implemented in 1986, but it was later scrapped in 1991. We should not be surprised to see another U-turn in the years ahead on this [The government House leader] might as well have set out for a stroll across a particular change. minefield. She pressed on with the plan until a predictable procedural war threatened to bring the House to a grinding halt. At that point she beat back in retreat — at cost As I said in my opening remarks, this has been a long road that we to her credibility. have travelled down. At the beginning, I was not sure whether the Liberal House leader's approach to this whole issue was aggressively Even veteran Liberal Warren Kinsella reached this conclusion ambitious or just very naive, but over the subsequent months, the when he tweeted last week, saying that if she was forced to do yet answer has become increasingly clear. another climb-down, her position would become untenable. Shortly after the parliamentary battle launched in March, Andrew Coyne wrote a piece entitled, “Renewed attempt to rewrite House The passage from Chantal Hébert's column was about a broader rules confirms Liberals are not to be trusted”. point: the fact that our self-proclaimed feminist Prime Minister has put a number of earnest, well-intentioned, but inexperienced young The article stated: female ministers into senior roles where they become political The [first] 18 months of the...government have been an education in cynicism. roadkill. As a female politician myself, it angers me when I see what Every time you think you have plumbed the depths, every time you believe you have the Prime Minister has done with his cabinet and those with pierced the many veils of their duplicity, you are delighted to discover still another immense professional potential. These are young people with huge con wrapped inside the last—usually delivered by some smiling minister tweeting variations on “Better is Always Possible” and “Diversity is Our Strength.” potential in the Liberal caucus, and they are being put in these positions just to benefit his cynical feminist brand. Later the article says: The latest chance to refresh our acquaintance with how deeply cynical the [Prime Basically, we are seeing some Liberal MPs being prematurely Minister's] people are—not have become: are—is the clutch of grubby expedients the promoted into roles and responsibilities ahead of having the government is now trying to stuff down the opposition’s throats, in the name, prettily, necessary experience to assume such weighty offices and then being of “parliamentary reform.” Scholars of the [Prime Minister's] style will recognize the expression “reform,” like “merit-based appointments” and “evidence-based policy,” asked to do the impossible for the Prime Minister. Some would call as a tell that some kind of humbug is afoot, and this is no exception.... this the “glass cliff”. 12890 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Government Orders I recognize that some of this could be inevitable when a party goes constitutional role of the House of Commons is not to pass bills but from being a third party straight into government. However, we have to hold the government to account. seen a pattern with the Prime Minister, which has been made much worse by a prime minister who is far more concerned with snappy Barely a year in office, the Liberals found this reality to be a sound bites and click-bait pictures than actually doing his own pesky inconvenience. They tried to eliminate this, to remove the members right and putting them in positions where they have distraction from a government built on platitudes and selfies. The experience and are not doomed to fail. He simply does not have his government has created a distraction, falsely called our calls for eye on competent management and professional development within consensus to be a demand for a veto. It was not a demand for a veto; his own government. it was our right. There is a significant gulf between a demand for a veto and a consensus. As Ms. Hébert suggested, these young rookie ministers could well have become formidable forces in Canadian politics. I wish them Negotiations and horse-trading inevitably lead to a result where well in their future, I honestly do. They would have been formidable one has to give up something to gain something. However, that is not forces in Canadian politics if they had a chance to mature in their how the government chose to approach the Standing Orders. It career paths, but instead they have seen their potential sacrificed for should not have ended up this way. It chose to provoke a procedural the sake of some re-tweets and trending hashtags. war in an effort to get its own way. As in every case throughout the Speaking personally, I know the value of taking one step at a time centuries when power-hungry kings and governments sought to curb on a career path. When I was first elected, I did a stint on the Parliament's powers, the House of Commons fought back. Just as in backbench and then I got to chair a committee. After that, I worked the past, the elected House won. We are grateful for that, and will for a while as a parliamentary secretary and then was promoted into keep fighting the government and doing our job. the ministry. Today, I find myself the opposition House leader, a role I am very privileged to hold. ● (1310) ● (1305) Ms. Filomena Tassi (Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I can assure the opposition Even though I am learning new things every day, it is not basic House leader that roadkill I am not. I am very proud of our Prime principles I am learning. I have had the benefit of adding my lessons Minister and the confidence he has shown in the women on this side to a base of experience and knowledge that I have acquired over of the House. It is a confidence and commitment that is long almost nine years. Regrettably, for the hon. member for Waterloo, I overdue. It has gone a long way to demonstrate to the world what do not think she has enjoyed the same benefit of incremental growth women have to offer, how their input is valued and how it will bring and development. However, the fault for that lies not at her feet but us to a far better place. with the Prime Minister. What is the lesson to take out of this whole episode from the However, my question is not with respect to the opposition House March discussion paper through to today's government motion? leader's comments. I want to focus on the Prime Minister's question period. In a column entitled, “Liberals forced to swallow humble pie — again — on parliamentary rule changes”, John Ivison stated, “the We know the Prime Minister is participating in this question Liberals have learned the hard way that the rules governing this most period in addition to the regular question period in the House. To precious of institutions can only be amended by consensus, not by date, the Prime Minister has answered 233 questions in the prime parliamentary cosh.” minister-specific question period in addition to the regular questions.

We have long said that the rules of the House belong to all I want to correct the record. The opposition House leader had members from all corners of the House. Changes should enjoy indicated we were backing off of this. We are not backing off. In consensus support before being implemented. The Liberals have fact, the government House leader has said that this government is learned this the hard way. Ideas for discussion and debate are to be committed to carrying this through. Therefore, I first want to correct welcomed. A prescriptive list of proposals strapped to a rocket for the record that this government will carry on with this commitment rapid implementation rightly rouses suspicions. because we believe it brings greater accountability. However, the government continually demonstrates its contempt for this institution and its history. Most recently, in his proposed Does the opposition House leader not believe that all future prime nominee for Clerk of the House of Commons, we once again saw the ministers should commit to keeping this practice? Prime Minister dismiss the consultation process and bypass the established non-partisan professional development practice for Hon. Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, first I want to address the career advancement with our procedural experts. There are some comments of my hon. colleague in regard to the positions that very serious and valid concerns with respect to how the nomination inexperienced ministers have been put in by the Prime Minister. of the Clerk has come about. Nobody is talking about whether it is a good idea to put women in Prime ministers, even those with majority governments, should cabinet positions. We agree with that. However, we need to put the not pick a fight with the House of Commons in a bald-faced power very best people in cabinet positions, and many times those very best grab to neuter what tools this House has. After all, the core people are women. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12891

Government Orders My colleague needs to ask herself this question, and maybe ask how he had his House leader try to carry out the agenda of the the former Minister of Democratic Institutions, the current Minister Liberals. of Status of Women, or maybe ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who had to defend the minister's appointment of official Mr. David de Burgh Graham (Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.): languages commissioner, and the government House leader: why Mr. Speaker, the member for Victoria and the opposition House does the Prime Minister put inexperienced female politicians in leader have talked a great deal about the need for consensus to positions he knows will be very difficult? change the Standing Orders. However, only six days ago, the NDP opposition day motion sought to change the Standing Orders on a He has given them some of the most difficult things to do without majority vote. a path to success. It is clear the Prime Minister is putting them in front of him. He is okay sacrificing them so he can get the glory he In the last Parliament, Motion No. 489, the member for Lanark— wants. As women, we need to stand up to that kind of thing, telling Frontenac—Kingston, did change the Standing Orders of the House him that is all show and not substance. It is very clear. on about 58% of the vote.

On the other issue around question period, it has been really There is a bit of sanctimony and hypocrisy in what the opposition interesting to hear the Liberals talk on and on about putting this in members say on an ongoing basis. I was at PROC for almost the their Standing Orders changes, and then it is absent. Maybe they entire 80 hours of that rather long meeting on March 21. What want to stop talking about prime minister's question period. It is not happened was we brought forward a motion to have a discussion on in this motion. the Standing Orders. It was a request for discussion. There were no Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am proud changes to the Standing Orders. The motion did not even refer to the of how the hon. opposition House leader and I have worked together minister's letter. It was a request for an ongoing conversation with over the last few months in order to look after the rights of the opposition. I was hoping we would all have this conversation. If parliamentarians against the current government's power grab. the opposition members did not like what came out of it, they could When the government House leader introduced her so-called have filibustered at that point and stopped the report. It still would discussion paper and then forced the Liberals at the procedure and not have come back to the House. House affairs committee to try to include it in their Standing Orders review, members will recall that the committee and House almost Why are opposition members not interested in having any kind of came to a grinding halt, slowing down the government's already actual meaningful discussion on changing the rules of this place? lethargic legislative pace. Hon. Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, it is clear from what that Would the hon. member agree that we likely would not have had member asked that the Liberals have not learned one thing from this to sit until midnight for the last four weeks if the government had entire episode. simply used a consensus basis for proceeding to change the Standing Orders? We have given numerous examples where previous governments under Liberals and Conservatives did have discussions around the ● (1315) Standing Orders. No substantive changes to the Standing Orders can Hon. Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank my hon. be made without a full consensus. That is a fact. colleague, the NDP House leader, for the way we have been able to work together. The fact that the member brought up the NDP opposition day The fact that the Conservatives and the New Democrats, who motion is proof of our point. The only way the NDP motion would disagree on pretty well everything, agreed on this showed how have passed in the House is if that party would have been able to important it was that they could not ram changes through. It really build a consensus and been able to persuade opposition members showed the substance of our argument. that its proposal was a good one. It was not able to do that and the motion did not pass. That is the way it should be. What the Liberals In regard to the long hours we have been sitting, it is clear how the did was the opposite. They are able to pass anything they want Liberals have mismanaged the House of Commons and the very few because they have a majority and they do not have to care about bills it is trying to get through. The fact is that even a week and a half building a consensus. ago, while we were sitting until midnight, while they were using time allocation, the Liberals brought two motions before the House The member's logic is flawed and his illogic proves our point, that that we had to debate. They really had no lasting impact, whether we being that we should only change the Standing Orders with a voted on them or not. There was one on the Paris agreement and one consensus. That means make the argument, persuade everybody that on foreign policy. It just had to do with the Liberals trying to find it is not partisan, and the change will happen. more ways to pat themselves on the back, and maybe try to divide this caucus, which did not work. We are seeing that everything the Liberals want to do is fully for their partisan benefit, and that is another reason they did not want to The fact that the Liberals had time to play those kinds of games build a consensus. and engage in that kind of self-indulgence really shows their motivation. At the end of the day, the Prime Minister does not Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, respect this place. He does not think it is necessary. He does not want I completely agree with the points that have been raised, that to be here. He treats this place like a nuisance, and that was clear in changing our Standing Orders does require consensus. 12892 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Government Orders It may not be fair to ask the opposition House leader about what and the use of filibusters at committee. I will examine them later, but was done in the Harper government, but for MPs in positions such as first we need to talk about how we got here. my own of being in a party with fewer than 12 here, instead of changing the Standing Orders, which would not be done with consensus, the then government under Stephen Harper used the device of writing a motion and then forcing every committee to pass it to restrict the rights of members in smaller parties to make The Liberals promised to “Change the House Standing Orders to amendments at report stage. end the improper use of omnibus bills and prorogation.” That was in the mandate letter for the hon. government House leader. Instead, The Liberals then used the exact same device, thus changing the their motion simply would legitimize omnibus bills. It would do legislative process in the House through the parliamentary alchemy nothing as well to hinder the improper use of prorogation, which the of forcing committees to pass motions. Committee by committee, Stephen Harper government used in 2008 and 2009. It would simply identical motions first in a majority Conservative Parliament and regularize that. Therefore, the cynicism in the standing order reform then in a majority Liberal Parliament have the effect of changing the is really quite breathtaking. They also promised to make committees way legislation goes through the House without consensus. independent by removing parliamentary secretaries, but the motion I wonder if the member has any comments on that. would do nothing of the sort to prevent them from being there, from managing the agenda in the interests of their ministers, or from ● (1320) ensuring their majority membership voted the right way. Hon. Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, I do recall quite fondly the 26 hours of voting that ensued at that particular time. I do recall the end result of what the member is referring to. Obviously there are a number of tools that both the government and the opposition have to achieve the results that they want. The In 2015, the campaign platform of the Liberals made a series of opposition has to do what it can to fight against what the government promises about parliamentary reform. It said this, “A Liberal wants and the government will be held to account for what it does. government will restore Parliament as a place where accountable people, with real mandates, do serious work on behalf of In this case, our initial approach to the government was for it to Canadians.” One of the things they said they would do would be put a group together, whether a group like the Jean Chrétien model, to change the rules so members and parliamentary secretaries may the Pierre Trudeau model, or the Brian Mulroney model. If we could not be, or stand for, voting members on committees. This gives, I have at least started with that, we could have had more input even think, the clear impression that parliamentary secretaries and from other parties in the House, but we could not get to that base. We ministers would not be on committees at all; not so fast, as we were stalled at every turn. will see. We are now at a place where we can somewhat agree on what we are going to disagree on. However, make no mistake: the government is doing this the wrong way. This is not the right process. This is not a success for the government. They also said they “will ensure that the Parliamentary Budget Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I wish to say Officer is truly independent...properly funded, and accountable only from the outset that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member —and directly—to Parliament.” The current parliamentary budget for Beloeil—Chambly. I ought to say at the outset as well that it is officer and the former PBO, Kevin Page, have just criticized the with regret that the NDP opposes Motion No. 18. Had there been a changes that the government has made in giving new responsibilities better way, we would not necessarily have been here. This motion to the parliamentary budget officer, fearing that they would have to represents the final act of a failed attempt by the government House have their work plan approved by the Speakers of the House and leader to unilaterally ram through changes that would overhaul rules Senate before proceeding, hardly something that enhances the that govern democracy and the House of Commons, and the independence the Liberals promised us. government failed. The Liberals would have done things that would have consolidated the power of the executive branch of government. I want to outline, therefore, how we got to this point. I do concede that many of the more odious things that the government wanted to slip The Liberals said they would end abuse of prorogation and in under the guise of a discussion paper never found a way into this omnibus bills. That was included, as I said, in the mandate letter to motion, mercifully. Still, the government's wish list is mostly about the government House leader. She was to “Work with the President trying to make the House function in a way that is simply more of the Treasury Board to ensure accounting consistency between the convenient to the government. That is not necessarily how Estimates and the Public Accounts”—I will have more to say about democracy was supposed to work. that in a moment—and, my favourite, “Work with Opposition House Leaders to examine ways to make the House of Commons more There are five things that this motion would do. I will address family-friendly for Members of Parliament.” That has certainly gone them in a bit of time, but they are the prorogation issue, omnibus by the wayside, as we see a four-week marathon session to midnight, bills, the timing of estimates, parliamentary secretaries at committee, which is hardly friendly to young families. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12893

Government Orders In March 2017, as the hon. opposition House leader has outlined, sides of the House, we would have had a more productive there was a so-called discussion paper where the government House Parliament. leader. laid out the Liberals' plan to overhaul the rules of the House, clearly rejecting the traditional approach of requiring all-party I would like to address the five things, very briefly. On agreement for major changes to the way this place runs. The Liberals prorogation, within 20 days of the new session following a simply did not seek all-party consensus. They simply thought they prorogation, the government would have to submit a report to the could ram through their changes; again, many of which were simply House explaining the reasons why it prorogued. What will that to make the life of a government easier. They did not succeed, I am achieve? It will achieve virtually nothing. It will not stop the misuse happy to say. of prorogation that we saw under Mr. Harper. In fact, it would simply ● (1325) allow rubber-stamping of prorogation. How cynical is that? They promised to eliminate Friday sittings. They have resiled On omnibus bills, it was Mr. Harper who traditionally used the from that commitment dramatically. Allowing ministers to vote budgets for his omnibus bills, so it is not about a budget without interrupting cabinet meetings is no longer there. Adding implementation act. It is about others. The Standing Order change sitting weeks in January, June, and September is out. would simply allow the Speaker to have the power to divide omnibus bills for the purpose of voting “where there is not a Have the House sit longer on any given day, eliminate the summer common element connecting the various provisions”. We saw the and Christmas adjournment date at the government's discretion, 300-page budget implementation bill that is before Parliament remove tools of the opposition from routine proceedings, replace the making all sorts of changes, which this would not affect. tool of time allocation with a more powerful tool called “program- ming”, and so forth; a lot of those things did not make it to this part On filibusters, in the interest of time, I cannot say much more, of our parliamentary process. Now we have a motion with merely except to say that was a positive change that came out of eleventh- five things. hour negotiations. There was also something called a “prime minister's question period” that did not make it. As of Friday it was in, but it is no longer On the budget and main estimates, the Treasury Board Secretariat there. I will ask Canadians to draw their own conclusions as to why. could have time to have the main estimates reflect what is in the We are supposed to assume that it will still be part of their practice. I budget. That is a good thing. However, our concern as opposition is do not know what we are to take from that. that this proposal merely reduces the amount of time the opposition and stakeholders would have to examine the main estimates. We saw a filibuster at PROC. We saw issues as we used our procedural playbook in this place to disrupt the government's The NDP must, regretfully, vote against the motion. We hope the agenda, to get Canadians' attention. The media and stakeholders rose government will never again attempt to unilaterally change the rules to the occasion. We simply said as opposition that we would not that govern all of us parliamentarians as we go about our duties in stand for unilateral changes to this place. I am proud that both this place. opposition parties worked together to find common ground in protecting parliamentary rights. ● (1330) Mr. Arnold Chan (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.): Mr. Speak- However, I want to give credit where credit is due. It was not just er, I want to thank my hon. friend from Victoria for his contribution Conservatives and NDP; there were well-meaning, experienced to the debate today on Motion No.18. Let me start with an Liberal members of Parliament who also understood how dangerous expression of regret that the opposition parties cannot move forward the government's course of action was. I refer, for example, to the in support of Motion No. 18, in spite of the fact that if we think about hon. member for Malpeque, who on April 17 said this: it, what really drove our attempt to bring the discussion paper The reality is there’s not enough getting done in the House. I’ve been a long-term forward, and many of the ideas for changing the Standing Orders, member and I strongly believe that you have to have at least consensus from the main were the excesses of the previous government in terms of its parties to change the rules of the House. overstep of its powers and our reaction to it, which ultimately made We also heard from many Liberal backbenchers, encouraging us its way into our campaign platform for 2015. not to give up, understanding we were dealing with their rights as parliamentarians as well. As the official opposition House leader and the third party House leader were giving their narratives of the proposed changes to the Eventually, the government has backed down and now we have Standing Orders, it seemed that the real reason they are opposed to what can only be described as pretty thin gruel before us. The them is that they object to the entire process. From my perspective, government has been very ineffective with its legislative productiv- the substantive changes we are trying to advance actually strengthen ity. The Liberal government has passed half the bills that were the opposition's capacity to keep the government to account, as passed by this time in the Harper government's mandate. The opposed to weakening it. Liberals have introduced 56 bills into either the House or Senate, and now have passed 25 since they came to power. Notwithstanding that Does my friend actually believe that we are driven by some there have been a lot of time allocation motions in the last while, I capricious, underhanded attempt to make this place less accoun- think most Canadians will agree that had they worked with other table? 12894 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Government Orders Mr. Murray Rankin: Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed, we are utterly Has my colleague reached the same conclusion? opposed to the process that brought us here, but that would be to not understand or grasp what I am saying about the content of what was [English] left on the table after the cutting room floor. On prorogation and omnibus bills, the two things the Liberals bragged about as commitments they would make in their mandate letter and during Mr. Murray Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I agree that there have been the campaign, all they have done is regularize them. The Liberals some positive changes in this Parliament, such as the example the will not change the content. They are simply saying, “Hey, we have a member gave of the electoral reform committee, which is something prorogation.” What does that do in terms of enhancing account- I was very proud of. I do not see why we cannot bring other ability? committees in that would be more representative and have more independents on them. Indeed, there are standing committees and There are things such as the estimates process, which, with work, there are standing committees. We would also have a committee of can be improved, but to take away a lot of the time we have to do our parliamentarians established, under Bill C-22, which is not even jobs as parliamentarians is a pretty weak start. The content as well as within the realm of the Standing Orders. It is entirely separate. the process are at issue. Mr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Parliament is an infinitely adaptable institution. We have shown Liberal government blames the previous government as the reason that in the examples the member gave and with the committee of for the changes, yet when we look at the types of changes it is parliamentarians. I think we can do better if we work together, but proposing, it is making things not better but substantially worse for a that is not addressed in what is before us in the motion. member of Parliament. My NDP colleague was sitting in those meetings and listening to [Translation] the members from the government talk about the changes and why they wanted to make the changes. Does he have confidence that the Mr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Liberals understand what the changes actually mean? today we are discussing Motion No. 18. This is a motion in which we see the Liberals making some compromises after the fiasco that Mr. Murray Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure they do, because unfolded these last few months over their proposed changes to the they seem to drip of cynicism and hypocrisy. To simply talk about rules and procedures of the House of Commons. prorogation but do nothing about it suggests that they really do not understand the abuses the Harper government brought to that process. Regarding omnibus bills, the big one was Bill C-38, the The government's efforts are doing nothing to improve things in famous Harper budget implementation bill that included everything Parliament or to increase government accountability, and neither are under the sun. This motion would not touch those budget measures; they solving the problematic use of omnibus bills and prorogation. it would, rather, touch other measures. However, those are the goals that the government set out with these changes. Again, one wonders if they are cynical or are simply trying to check a box on some campaign program and say that they delivered. Meanwhile, the Liberals talk about things today that are not even Last Thursday, I had the opportunity to attend a meeting of the there, such as the Prime Minister's question period, yet we are still Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The Leader of supposed to take it on faith that they really mean it. I find it the Government in the House of Commons was in appearance to confusing. testify on this very matter. During her testimony, she used an expression that I did not at all appreciate given what has transpired. ● (1335) She spoke of a lack of political will. I believe political will is [Translation] necessary in order to adopt bold ideas and take risks. However, in Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would order to do that and to hold the kinds of discussions the government like to know if my colleague has reached the same conclusion as we claims to want to hold, we need a healthy process in which these have in the Bloc Québécois. bold ideas can be heard so that we may then show the political will to move ahead with this so-called modernization of Parliament, to Not all committees that are struck are standing committees. For use the terms used by the government. example, the NDP previously set up a committee on pay equity and a sub-committee on the appointment of senior public servants. The government's chosen approach to this issue is a product of its Independent members are always omitted from these committees, ultimate arrogance. The political will to discuss substantial issues however. Exceptionally, and at the request of the Bloc Québécois, was there. However, without a healthy process in which all voices the Special Committee on Electoral Reform included a member from can be heard, no progress can be made. Unfortunately, that is both the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party. Reading the proposed something the government still does not understand. amendments to the Standing Orders, I can see that Standing Order 116 would be replaced and that the Standing Orders shall apply in a standing, special or legislative committee. That means no Listening to the questions that have been asked and the comments special committees on which members of the Bloc or the Green that were made since debate started this morning, it is clear that the Party could sit. government still does not understand. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12895

Government Orders I do not want to digress too long, because I want to talk about the but once it is in the rules, any government, current or future, will be substantial issues surrounding the motion, but I do want to touch on able to say that this tactic is fine because it is in the rules. the question asked by the member for Laurentides—Labelle, for example, who spoke of our search for consensus. The member for Let us talk about prorogation. I remember in 2008 when Mr. Skeena—Bulkley Valley and the member for Lanark—Frontenac— Harper announced that he was proroguing Parliament. He was trying Kingston, among others, worked hard for the entire NDP opposition to get out of a situation where the opposition parties had the day to try to end partisan appointments. They also worked with the audacious political will to form a new government to replace the government the entire day to try to come up with an amendment that Conservative government. Let us not forget what happened when might allow for consensus, to make the necessary concessions to get Parliament resumed after prorogation. Perhaps that is why the the government on board. However, the government voted against Liberals are not so keen to talk about prorogation and making real that amendment and then voted against the motion. changes, because it seemed to have served them well in 2009. They came back and suddenly had nothing more to say about it. They The member for Laurentides—Labelle accuses us of hypocrisy on were quite pleased to have Mr. Harper stay in power. However, I do this matter. I consider that unparliamentary language. He needs to not want to dwell on the past. I want to talk about the current look at himself in the mirror and acknowledge what has been going government. on for the past few months. This is not a new problem. We have been dealing with this problem since last year with the infamous The government is proposing to table a report in the House of Motion No. 6, which sought to remove some of the opposition's Commons outlining its reasons for using prorogation. It essentially powers. When I think about this government's attempts to improve boils down to a press release that would be tabled in the House. If the parliamentary life for all members, the expression “do as I say, not as government does not see that any MP or its communications officer I do” comes to mind. could quite easily come up with a justification for using prorogation, then it is dreaming in technicolour. Let us turn to the substantive issues in Motion No. 18, such as the item on omnibus bills. Instead of putting an end to the practice, to In that respect, I asked the Leader of the Government in the House this scourge, which has a negative impact on parliamentary life and of Commons at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure prevents members from doing a good job and properly analyzing and House Affairs whether there would at least be a vote on this some extremely important legislative measures, the government is report, as provided for in the Standing Orders of the House in the normalizing and validating the use of omnibus bills. case of motions to concur in committee reports. She could not even We need only recall what the Leader of the Government in the say. She simply said that the use of this mechanism would ensure House of Commons said in committee last week on the importance accountability. That does not mean much. The government is not of themes. The problem with themes is that one can always find a even considering the possibility of allowing parliamentarians to vote way to justify that something relates to the budget. That is exactly on this report. what the previous government did with its excessive use of omnibus bills. Once again, after promising to correct a mechanism that the previous government abused, the new government is simply giving Bill C-44, the bill to implement certain provisions of the budget, us a fine press release. That is not showing respect for Parliament, contains legislative measures to create the infrastructure bank. This quite the opposite. involves a fundamental change in how our infrastructure is funded. This has caused great concern among parliamentarians, civil society, The government also wants to reduce the time provided for the and Canadians. consideration of the estimates in committee from three months to eight weeks. Once again, I am wondering how giving parliamentar- ● (1340) ians less time to do this work shows respect for them and the job On Friday, I saw Senator Pratte on television saying that he was in they do. favour of the infrastructure bank but did not understand why the government is bound and determined to include it in this bill rather In closing, I would like to propose an amendment, but first I than carrying out an appropriately thorough review of such an would like to say that nothing has been learned with regard to the important measure. parliamentary secretaries in committee. If the government really believes that preventing the parliamentary secretaries from voting or Even senators who support the idea of the bank do not like its moving motions is sufficient to convince us that the PMO and being in the omnibus bill, proof that the government crossed a line. cabinet do not have any power in committee, then it is dreaming in The same thing could easily happen again, even with the changes technicolour, because all that the parliamentary secretaries have to proposed in Motion No. 18. The Liberal Party would have us believe do is whisper their instructions to the Liberal members. that these measures will enable parliamentarians to study important legislative initiatives like this one, but what the motion really does is That is not the real change the Liberals promised. On the contrary, officially normalize the government's use of omnibus bills. pretending that this is a real change demonstrates a greater lack of respect for Parliament than simply abusing the mechanisms. At least What is even worse is that, by making these measures part of the with the previous government, we knew exactly what it wanted from House rules, nobody will even be able to criticize them. Now, at us. Now, we are getting stabbed in the back. That is not the way to least, we can say that it is an inappropriate use of legislative tools, show real respect for parliamentarians. 12896 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Government Orders ● (1345) Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, [English] CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is quite rich to hear the government attest its good intentions of how interested it is in following through on the In conclusion, I move, seconded by the member for Victoria: Liberal platform. That the motion be amended in part 2 by deleting all the words in section 69.1(1) after the words “divide the” and substituting the following: How about the Liberals balance the budget four years into their “bill thematically into separate and distinct bills, each of which shall be deemed to mandate, as they promised? That would be something that is very have been read a first time and shall be ordered to be printed. The order for second reading for the newly divided bill shall provide for referral to a committee or important to Canadians. There are so many platform commitments committees determined in consultation with the Leader of the Government in the that Liberals are completely ignoring. House of Commons. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the I want to ask my friend a specific question about the role of Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): parliamentary secretaries on committee. The government has said it Mr. Speaker, listening to what the government House leader had to was going to take parliamentary secretaries off committees, and now, say when introducing the debate, it should be very clear. it is trying to put them back on, not in place of a Liberal member but actually to effectively increase the number of government members The Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians. What we present on committees. are debating today is the fulfillment of that commitment. I understand and I can appreciate that the opposition has fought long This is a real concern for me, because we have seen cases of the and hard for all sorts of things. I will not go into the details of those government appearing not to want to have members of the things. The reality is that today's debate is all about a commitment opposition present at in camera discussions if those members are that was made by the Prime Minister, and that commitment is being not formally members of the committee. This opens the door for the fulfilled by this government. government to effectively exclude all other members of Parliament My question for the members opposite is quite simple. There was from being at in camera discussions, except the ones who are a legitimate discussion paper. There was a legitimate outreach from members of the committee or parliamentary secretaries. It is a way the government House leader. Now I am hearing opposition for the government to grow its contingent on committees while members saying that maybe we should have the PM question period leaving parliamentary secretaries involved. in the House. We have a Prime Minister who is committed to it. He is fulfilling his commitments. I wonder if the member could comment on how it strengthens committees if the government has through this—I want to say “back For whatever reason, the combined opposition feels it has to door”, but it is actually pretty explicit what it is doing—tried to criticize for the sake of criticism, as if that is the only role it has to increase its representation on committees. play on the issue of Standing Orders. Mr. Matthew Dubé: Mr. Speaker, on the preamble to my My question for the member is this. Would he not at least agree colleague's question, if the Liberals defended their other promises that it is important that the resolution brought forward today as part with as much vigour as they have wanted to defend this one, maybe of the Prime Minister's commitment to Canadians should be it would have gotten something like electoral reform done. respected and advanced? ● (1350) That being said, I want to address the question of parliamentary Mr. Matthew Dubé: Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing the Liberals secretaries on committee. Some members may not know that it are referring to it as the Prime Minister's question period, because it actually requires unanimous consent to have a member who is not a certainly is not the Prime Minister's answer period, as we have seen formal member of the committee at these in camera proceedings. up until this point. Right now that means parliamentary secretaries. If this is really following up on the Liberal Party's commitments What the government is doing here is taking away the opposition's from the last election, what are the Liberals actually doing with this ability to say no at in camera proceedings. The government House motion? They are normalizing and formalizing the use of omnibus leader, when I asked her this question at PROC last week, gave us an budget bills. Liberals are basically saying that they are going to answer that said it was in case members need information. Pardon prorogue and we should not worry because they will table a press me, but if I need information from the minister, we are going to bring release in the House of Commons, but they will not let us vote on it. the minister in front of committee. I do not need someone who is Liberals are saying we should not worry about the parliamentary sitting there listening in on the proceedings representing the minister secretaries, because they will not vote or table motions in committee. to give that information. The title parliamentary secretary means exactly that, and is a minister going to sit in on a committee? They represent ministers. Does the government House leader think that is appropriate? Moreover, we have those opportunities to question ministers and parliamentary secretaries. Committee work also means studies, I sat in this place in the last Parliament when that member lit his clause-by-clause consideration, and things like that. Quite frankly, hair on fire, day in and day out, at the abuses we saw by the previous whether members can vote, or pass a motion, their mere presence has government. At least I knew where Conservatives stood. I thought I an impact on members, whether or not we wish to recognize it. It is knew where that member stood, but I guess I was wrong. too bad the government does not. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12897

Statements by Members The Deputy Speaker: Before we resume debate with the hon. to reflect back on the fact that the former prime minister, the Right member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, I will let her know that there are Hon. Paul Martin, did not prorogue the House to avoid a confidence only five minutes remaining in the time before the House proceeds to vote he knew he was about to lose. I imagine it did not even occur to statements by members. She will have her remaining time when the him to do such a thing, because it simply was not done. It had not House next gets back to debate on the question. been done. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to present the views of the Green Party on If we look at the Commonwealth, of all the nations that have changes to the Standing Orders, as proposed in this place earlier this prorogation, of all the prime ministers able to dissolve their morning by the government House leader. parliaments, there were only two examples up to the date of 2008 when a Parliament had been prorogued to avoid political I first want to notify the House that I will be splitting my time with embarrassment. The other example, to our chagrin, was our first the hon. member for Montcalm, who like me represents a political prime minister, the Right Hon. John A. Macdonald. Sir John A. party with status before Elections Canada, with votes in this place Macdonald prorogued over something called the Pacific scandal and, and equal status to any other MP. However, as a Bloc Québécois when Parliament came back, he immediately adjourned and went to member, he like me enjoys fewer rights because, historically, over a an election. It was not as egregious as what happened here. To close very long period of time, larger parties have worked to reduce the down Parliament to avoid a vote one knows one is going to lose is rights of members of parties who are not, at this point, in the big not something we needed to have rules about, because no previous three. It is one of those areas that I wish we could revisit when we prime minister in Canada had done it so abusively as former prime look at Standing Orders, because it is inherently anti-democratic that minister the Right Hon. Stephen Harper did. some members of Parliament, and therefore their constituents, have fewer rights than other members of Parliament. This is an opportunity to right that wrong and make sure it never happens again, but the proposal from the hon. government House I will mention parenthetically, because this is not the thrust of leader falls far short of that. It creates some rules that, after most of my remarks, that we are the only Parliament in the prorogation, Parliament resumes and then gets to talk about the Commonwealth with this notion of two-tier members of Parliament. reasons. There are 650 members of the U.K. Parliament, and I have a lot of (1355) sympathy for my colleague the co-leader of the Green Party of ● England and Wales, Caroline Lucas, who serves in a Parliament of I will resume on this point tomorrow. I know everyone will be on 650 members. However, there, the right and ability to perform the edge of their seats. functions in the House is not treated on a junior and senior basis as happens in this place, in a rather bizarre fashion when we take a long The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will have five minutes historical view of it. remaining for her remarks and five minutes for questions and comments when the House next returns to debate on the question. We have certainly heard very good speeches so far this afternoon on the very key point before us, which is that we do not change the Standing Orders without political consensus among the parties in this place. Again, the bigger parties have exercised that without STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS regard to those of us who represent parties. I am here not as an independent. The seating chart of the House of Commons makes it [Translation] clear that I am here as a Green Party member of Parliament, but without the same rights as others. However, the reality is that the RAIF BADAWI bigger parties reach consensus on changing the Standing Orders. That is the way it is usually done, and for good reason. Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in a few days the House will adjourn for the summer. The members will head back These traditions go back, in some cases, hundreds of years. It is to their ridings, back to their families, and the government will have terribly important that there not be unilateral changes made by the passed its priorities, far from Quebec’s priorities. side of the House that has the most votes, because that would be a very perilous way forward. We are dealing with issues that are quite Do you know who is not a government priority? Do you know fundamental. This is an important and historic opportunity, for who will not be going back to his family this week? Raif Badawi, instance, to fix the rules around prorogation. We never had to have that is who. rules around prorogation because the glue that holds the Westminster parliamentary democracy together in Canada is a glue that is In 2015, the Prime Minister said that Raif Badawi’s case called amorphous. It is not written down. for quick, responsible, and progressive action. For five years now the Saudi blogger has been in prison and could be lashed at any moment, On the rules on prorogation, leading up to a confidence vote in and this government has been neither quick, responsible, progres- this place, the NDP, Conservatives, and the Bloc decided to warn sive, nor effective. That is five years during which Canada has done former prime minister the Right Hon. Paul Martin that his nothing for him. Ottawa has abandoned Raif. Ottawa has abandoned government would be brought down on November 28, 2005, a date Raif Badawi’s family. That is this government’s human rights record. of convenience that the three other parties decided upon to go to an Canada is selling tanks to a regime that crushes those who think. election and bring down the government. It is important historically That is a real shame. 12898 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Statements by Members ● (1400) We then proceeded to join with my mother and father to celebrate [English] Father's Day at a Father's Day lunch. I know last week was a particularly momentous week for my father, given the journey that DILALLO BURGER he has been through over the past few years. Mr. David Lametti (LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, Lib.): Mr. I then went back home to prepare packing to come to Ottawa. I got Speaker, I rise here today to talk to you about an institution that has a surprise from my three children as I was leaving. They presented been part of the riding of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun since 1929. me with a book called “How Much I Love You”, little notes that they Founded by Italian immigrants, Dilallo Burger became the first basically wrote to me. However, I did not have a chance to read it Italian restaurant chain in Montreal. until I arrived in Ottawa and got settled into my room. By the time I What differentiates Dilallo's from other restaurant chains is not had finished reading it, I was an emotional, quivering mess, even only its famous upside-down buck burgers with peppers and cold though I am not normally an emotive person. cuts inside; rather, what makes Dilallo's special is the place that it has created in the community as a gathering place for close to 90 years. Let me say, on behalf of all fathers and their children, as their children are thinking about their fathers, they cherish the bonds By sponsoring local minor hockey teams, including one that between them for that incredible love. included, at the same time, Mario Lemieux, Jean-Jacques Daigneault, and Marc Bergevin, they gave back. These three today, A happy belated Father's Day to all fathers everywhere. and others, including Ken Dryden, cannot resist Dilallo burgers. *** [Translation] SALE OF STELCO Since the turn of the 20th century, Dilallo Burger has been a place Mr. Scott Duvall (Hamilton Mountain, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the that provided such a sense of community, that it seemed like the sale of Stelco to Bedrock Industries has finally been approved. It is restaurant was an essential part of Ville-Émard. It has been a good news for Hamilton, and it is good news for the workers and gathering place for the neighbourhood, the city, and several Montreal some pensioners. The deal was not perfect. Health benefits for some icons. This restaurant reflects the history of a family that settled in pensioners will be funded at 70%, and workers' pensions depend on Canada and built a gathering place for generations. Congratulations. the sale of badly contaminated land. *** Improving the deal would have required the involvement of the [English] federal government, but the present government refused to get involved, despite repeated calls for help. CREDIT UNIONS Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, Marty Warren, Steelworkers District 6 director, summed it up by CPC): Mr. Speaker, I wonder how many members in this place do commenting on the Bedrock deal, “The federal government has not their banking with a credit union? I ask that question because, thanks been engaged and has not offered any material support—neither in to the big-government approach of the Liberals, fairly soon the this case nor to help other communities across the country hurting answer will be zero. Any day now, archaic decades-old provisions of from the steel crisis. Essar Steel Algoma...is operating under CCAA the out-of-date Bank Act will be enforced. That will mean that credit protection and other steelmakers have cut jobs and production, but unions will no longer be able to use the words “bank”, “banking”, our federal government is missing in action.” and “banker”. By extension, “online banking”, opening a “bank account”, and “bank with us” will basically become outlawed words, The present government needs to stand up for the Canadian steel subject to big fines. industry, workers, and pensioners. It needs to stop the double-talk and get to work. This needless word hunt will not only confuse middle-class consumers but will also impose yet another costly regulatory burden *** on Canada's credit unions, which have been particularly hard hit by ● (1405) the present Liberal government. ANNIVERSARY OF THE PEMMICAN WAR On behalf of the many credit unions in my riding and as a member of the all-party parliamentary credit union caucus, I would ask that Hon. MaryAnn Mihychuk (Kildonan—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr. the finance minister stop this needless action. One would think that Speaker, today, June 19, we mark the 201st anniversary of an event the finance minister would better spend his time balancing the books. that took place in my riding of Kildonan—St. Paul, which shaped the future of Manitoba, Canada, and marked the birth of a new people. *** After years of smouldering conflict known as the Pemmican War, FATHER'S DAY the victory at Frog Plain was a decisive conclusion for the Mr. Arnold Chan (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.): Mr. indigenous people led by General Cuthbert Grant. At this battle, Speaker, yesterday I began my day at the Princess Margaret Cancer the Métis flag of infinity flew. Will Goodon of the Manitoba Métis Foundation Walk with my family, raising money for cancer research, Federation says the battle started a “spark of consciousness” that which is obviously very important to me. marked the founding of the Métis nation. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12899

Statements by Members In this 150th year of Confederation, we should remember that [Translation] what we now call Canada has always been home to many peoples. FOREST FIRES IN PORTUGAL The birth of the Métis nation marked something new and unique Mrs. Alexandra Mendès (Brossard—Saint-Lambert, Lib.): on this continent: the beginning of a proud history that we continue Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise in the House to to write, even today. express my most heartfelt condolences to the Portuguese people and the entire Portuguese-Canadian community to which I belong, who *** suffer despite the distance.

TURKEY Yesterday morning we woke up to a nightmarish tragedy. I can Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, hardly imagine how devastated the families who lost 62 loved ones CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada has a long-standing relationship with in that exceptionally fierce forest fire are feeling. Turkey, but as happens sometimes with relationships, we are now not as compatible as we used to be. The European Union responded quickly with the moral and logistical support warranted by the situation. The diaspora is Turkey's government systematically violates the rights of its own stepping up to provide support and assistance to all the villages people, ignores basic democratic norms, and has undermined that were destroyed. international peace and security. I would ask my colleagues whose constituents include Portuguese Irregularities plagued the last Turkish election and the recent Canadians to reach out to them and offer some comfort. referendum, a referendum that effectively put all power into one person's hands. Minorities have long-standing grievances, and their Portugal will be a happy country once again, but for now, in the situation is getting worse. Turkey's decision to target Kurdish hearts of 16 million souls there is only fado and saudade. fighters who are themselves engaged against Daesh has negatively impacted our security. As well, is Russia really just a friend? I am *** beginning to wonder. ● (1410) This is a clear low point in our relationship, but I still believe [English] Turkey can change. It is time for Turkey to released imprisoned opposition politicians, restore genuine democracy, address electoral WORLD ELDER ABUSE AWARENESS DAY irregularities, recognize the full rights of minority communities, open Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, each the Turkish-Armenian border, recognize past acts of genocide, and year June 15 marks World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. restart the peace process. Elder abuse is an important human rights issue we all can bring Turkey, it is not me: it is you. If Turkey does not change, then awareness to, and help ensure that older generations have a right to western policy toward it will have to. Otherwise it will simply live a life of dignity. This means a life free from all forms of abuse, become somebody that we used to know. including financial and physical abuse, as well as material exploitation, which can lead to significant emotional and mental *** suffering.

ATTACK IN LONDON This issue is particularly close to my heart, and in my role as Mr. Omar Alghabra (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, former Minister of State for Seniors, I am incredibly proud of the last night, on one of their holiest nights of the year, Muslim legislation my colleagues and I created to help end elder abuse. worshippers were attacked in London when a van drove into an unsuspecting crowd. We unequivocally condemn this terrorist attack I am disappointed by this current government's lack of focus on and express our sympathy to those affected. People are scared and this issue, in particular their decision to abolish the Minister of State are looking for answers. for Seniors portfolio. I hope to see all my colleagues and all Canadians fight to end this devastating form of abuse. The rash of horrific attacks around the world is causing understandable anger and fear. All forms of extremism seek to turn *** us against each other. They aim to spread suspicion and hate. At FOREST FIRES IN PORTUGAL times of adversity, it is important to recommit to our values of openness, equality, and the rule of law. Mr. Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East—Cooksville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with a heavy heart, Canadians' and over 400,000 We need to double our resolve to promoting our values and Portuguese Canadians' thoughts are with the families and friends common humanity. We are determined to hold terrorists accountable of those affected by the deadly forest fires that have struck several and to offer comfort to victims. At times of adversity, we must stand parts of Portugal. We express our condolences to those who have lost united against hate and violence. loved ones. 12900 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Statements by Members Devastating fires affecting the forests around Pedrógão, an area I thank Mr. Ibell for his dedication to his cause. His legacy will close to where I was born and have family, 120 kilometres north of carry on. Lisbon, have caused over 60 deaths and many injuries. *** We thank our EU friends, and especially France, Spain, and Italy, for their firefighting assistance to the Portuguese authorities and HELMUT KOHL people of Portugal at this time of need. Mr. Sven Spengemann (Mississauga—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. We commend the bravery of the firefighters and emergency Speaker, last Friday, former German chancellor Helmut Kohl passed services on the scene risking their own lives to save others. away at the age of 87. A household name during my childhood, he appeared regularly on the television sets of my parents and Portuguese Prime Minister António Costa said, “The dimensions grandparents and shaped my early views of politics. of this fire have caused a human tragedy beyond any in Portugal's recent memory.” Chancellor Kohl was a stalwart champion of European integration and played a pivotal role in the reunification of Germany. He saw [Member spoke in Portuguese as follows] German unity as an inseparable element of a strong, stable, and Para Portugal, dos seus compatriotas no Canada, o nosso amor prosperous Europe. e simpatias. Kohl's chancellorship spanned over 16 years, to this day the [English] longest tenure of the post-war chancellors.

*** As one of eight German-born members who have ever had the IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES AND CITIZENSHIP privilege of sitting in this chamber, let me put my sentiments into the words of the poet Goethe: Mr. Ali Ehsassi (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a member of the standing committee that assisted in drafting Bill C-6, I am [Member spoke in German as follows] honoured to rise today to celebrate the recent changes to our immigration system. The passage of this important legislation represents not only the realization of another pivotal Liberal So Ehre denn, wem Ehre gebührt! campaign promise, but also reaffirms the highest ideals of Canadian identity and inclusive citizenship. [English] As the member of Parliament for one of Canada's most multicultural ridings, I am proud to represent a government that Therefore honour … to whom honour is due. fully appreciates that our diversity is a source of great pride. Furthermore, as an immigrant to this country myself, I found the previous government's unjust, two-tiered citizenship model to be I would ask all members to join me today in honouring former disgraceful and abhorrent. chancellor Helmut Kohl, a remarkable man and unequivocally a titan of European history. By contrast, Bill C-6 repudiates the previous government's cynical politics of division and once again upholds our noble calling that a *** Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, irrespective of where one is ● (1415) born. NORTHWESTERN BRITISH COLUMBIA *** Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. SIMON IBELL Speaker, the people of Northwestern British Columbia have a proud Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tradition of hard work and self-reliance. They do not expect a lot stand today to pay tribute to Mr. Simon Ibell of British Columbia, from the government in Ottawa, other than a fair share and a Prime who unfortunately passed away on May 26 at the age of 39. Minister willing to fight on their behalf.

When Simon was two years old, he was diagnosed with Hunter's When it comes to salmon and softwood lumber, even those syndrome, a rare metabolic disorder that can cause potentially fatal modest expectations are not being met. The lumber industry has lost organ damage. Despite doctors who claimed Simon would not see 150 mills and more than 30,000 jobs in just over a decade. It might his fifth birthday, he lived a full and adventurous life. lose another 15,000 jobs threatened by Donald Trump's illegal Simon loved sports, and through sports, he advocated for people tariffs. One small mill in Moricetown that employs 60 people has a with rare illnesses. In 2003, he was named the Canadian Spirit of bill from Trump for almost $400,000. Sport Story of the Year for having biked 500 kilometres over 10 days on Vancouver Island and raising $250,000 for MPS diseases. When it comes to wild salmon, the picture is even more disturbing. The DFO has announced total closures on sockeye on Simon was a hero to those who are fighting rare illnesses and was the once abundant Skeena River. Years of neglect and cuts to funding an inspiration to everyone who was lucky enough to meet him. have hurt our wild fishery. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12901

Oral Questions Our communities have a plan to help out both the fishing and ORAL QUESTIONS forestry sectors. We just need a government in Ottawa that is as hard- working and determined as the people of British Columbia's [Translation] northwest. FINANCE The only question is this: will the government answer the call? Mr. Alain Rayes (Richmond—Arthabaska, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister announced during the election campaign that he *** would run small deficits of $10 billion a year. At the current rate, the deficits will be $25 billion a year. Initially, that was supposed to be INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS for only two years, but now we are told that it will be for an Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, indefinite period. CPC): Mr. Speaker, last week a Saskatchewan court ruled that The Prime Minister is showing yet again that he is utterly Onion Lake Cree Nation must publish its financial information in incapable of managing taxpayers' money responsibly, and it is our accordance with the First Nations Financial Transparency Act. The children and grandchildren who will pay the price. case was filed by Charmaine Stick, a courageous band member from Onion Lake. The minister's excuses for not enforcing financial My question is simple. Can the Prime Minister tell Canadians, transparency have never held water. One of her feeble reasons was once and for all, when we will return to a balanced budget? that publishing the books would hurt the band's economic interests. However, the judge said otherwise. He stated: Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during the last election, Canadians had a very simple There is no evidence before me as to the political or economic reasons why Onion choice to make. Two parties wanted to make cuts to balance the Lake has refused to provide and post specified information. There is, for example, no evidence that Onion Lake's commercial interests would be negatively [impacted].... budget at all costs, while we proposed investing in our communities, in growing the middle class, in science and technology research, and The Conservatives will continue urging the Liberals to reverse in the economic growth that Canadians needed after 10 years of their irresponsible decision to gut the First Nations Financial mismanagement under that opposition party. Transparency Act. No other band member should have to go to court The fact is that we are investing in our future together, just as we for access to basic information. promised Canadians we would do.

I congratulate Charmaine. This is an important victory for band *** members across Canada. ● (1420) *** INFRASTRUCTURE [Translation] Mr. Alain Rayes (Richmond—Arthabaska, CPC): Mr. Speaker, senators are calling for an independent review of the infrastructure INFRASTRUCTURE bank. Members on this side of the House are calling for the same. Mr. Angelo Iacono (Alfred-Pellan, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our Every expert who has studied this infrastructure bank is concerned government promised a historic infrastructure investment plan. We about the risks and fears that taxpayers will ultimately have to pay have kept that promise by announcing more than 3,000 projects for this bank. across the country. If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide and the bank is as white as snow, then why is he afraid to have it thoroughly reviewed? Thanks to the leadership of my Quebec colleagues, we have announced 256 projects in Quebec worth over $1.2 billion in federal Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. funding, and that is in addition to $1.3 billion for the REM, Speaker, we have been talking about this infrastructure bank for Montreal's electric rail network. This funding will provide flexible years. It was one of our core election promises. financing for projects that matter to our communities. We know that we need to invest in infrastructure. After a decade Money has been stagnating in Ottawa for years, but we have under the previous government, we have made record investments of accelerated funding for the Musée d'art contemporain de Montréal up to $180 billion. and the Place des Canotiers in Quebec City. However, we also have to be innovative. That is why we are We will soon be announcing details about federal funding for setting up this infrastructure bank, in order to build more public transit projects. infrastructure, whether for public transit, roads, or ports, things that Canadians need to create economic growth. I am proud of everything our government has accomplished in Mr. Alain Rayes (Richmond—Arthabaska, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Quebec. We are making wise, ambitious investments to build strong, we are calling on the Prime Minister to tell us when we will return to sustainable, inclusive communities. a balanced budget and he has nothing intelligent to say to us. 12902 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Oral Questions He is asking taxpayers to sign a $35-billion cheque for the all costs through cuts to services and investments for Canadians. We infrastructure bank. It makes no sense. The Liberals are irresponsible made a commitment to invest in a brighter future through investing and improvising across the board with taxpayers' money. in infrastructure for Canadians and by putting more money in the pockets of the middle class by raising taxes on the wealthiest one per When will the Prime Minister respect this institution and allow us cent, all things those members stood against. to take a more thorough look at this bank? Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. *** Speaker, the members across the way are proving once again that they do not understand how the Canadian economy works or what ● (1425) Canadians need. Canadians need investment in infrastructure for things like public [Translation] transit, affordable housing, and green infrastructure. For 10 years, the former government of the members across the way under- INTERNATIONAL TRADE invested in our communities. We know that we have to make immediate and innovative investments, and that is exactly what we Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP): Mr. are doing for Canadians. Speaker, the Premier of Quebec will be in Washington today to talk about the NAFTA negotiations, and many Quebec mayors have [English] already done likewise. Elected officials in Quebec no longer have Hon. Candice Bergen (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, any confidence in the federal government to conduct these the Prime Minister's proposed $35-billion slush fund, also known as negotiations. the Liberal infrastructure bank, is a disaster in the making. Even worse, we have learned, according to what the finance minister said I do not blame them after the government's failure to properly last week, that the slush fund will not be run by Canadians. address the softwood lumber and diafiltered milk issues. Unlike Can the Prime Minister please explain why he will be appointing those of the federal government, Quebec's priorities are clear: protect foreigners, who do not have Canada's best interests in mind, to the good jobs, protect supply management, and resolve the softwood board of the Liberal infrastructure bank? lumber issue. Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that we need investments in public transit. When will the government tell us what its priorities are for the We need investments in social infrastructure. We need investments in renegotiation of NAFTA? green infrastructure to grow our communities, to grow our economy, and to create good jobs for the middle class today and for our Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. children and grandchildren tomorrow. That is the vision of our Speaker, I want to commend my friend Philippe Couillard, the government. This is what we put forward in the election campaign, Premier of Quebec, who, like all of the other provincial premiers, has and this is what we continue to work on. committed to working with the American government.

We know that global investment can lead to better outcomes for We emphasized how important it is for all levels of government to Canadians. That is what we are focusing on drawing in. work together to make the United States understand that Canadians *** stand united, that we are concerned about its approach, and that we are prepared to strongly defend Canada's interests. That is what we FINANCE are all going to do, and I commend Premier Couillard for his Hon. Candice Bergen (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, initiative today in Washington. the Prime Minister's refusal to answer that question shows why this infrastructure bank is a complete disaster. Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister needs to stop repeating his talking Over the weekend, when asked a direct question, the Prime points and reassure Canadians once and for all. Minister refused to say when, if ever, he plans on balancing the budget. Given that our children and our grandchildren will be the [English] ones stuck paying off his excessive spending habits and his multi- billion-dollar tab, they deserve an honest answer to a simple question. The Liberals cannot continue to hold Canadians in the dark when it comes to the renegotiation of NAFTA. Workers throughout the In what year does the Prime Minister plan on balancing the country are quickly losing confidence in the Liberal government and budget? Will it be the year that pigs fly or the year that hell freezes its ability to negotiate a good trade deal in their interest. In less than a over? month, the U.S. will reveal its final priorities, and still, deafening Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. silence from the government side. Speaker, we have heard all these arguments before. They were the core of the member opposite's re-election campaign. It was the core Canadians deserve a government that will stand up and fight for of the Conservative platform in the 2015 election, a platform soundly their jobs, so when will the government release its plans on the rejected by Canadians, because it focused on balancing the budget at renegotiation of NAFTA? June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12903

Oral Questions Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. I understand that the members opposite want to spend all their Speaker, we very much look forward to sitting down with the time negotiating and examining everything that happens in the American side after August 18, when the Americans have House, but sooner or later, we have to deliver on the commitments permission to sit down and start negotiating. Until then, we have made to Canadians. We need to keep our promises regarding the made it very clear that our priorities are defending Canada's interests. public transit Canadians need, as well as social infrastructure. That is Whether it be in softwood, whether it be in auto, or whether it be in exactly what our government is doing for Quebec, for Quebeckers, dairy and supply management, we will always stand up and defend and for all Canadians. Canada's interests. We will not, however, talk in great detail about our negotiation strategy. Canadians know we will defend their *** interests. We will continue to fight hard for Canadian jobs and for growth for the middle class, because that is what Canadians expect ● (1430) of us. FOREIGN INVESTMENT *** Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): Mr. Speaker, INFRASTRUCTURE we know that the Prime Minister thinks highly of the Chinese Mr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the dictatorship. We also know that the Prime Minister invested Prime Minister is fighting with his new independent Senate over hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars in an Asian bank. We splitting the infrastructure bank from the omnibus budget bill, but if also know that the Prime Minister met with Chinese billionaires who the Liberals had kept their promises and worked with parliamentar- made very generous contributions to his father's foundation. None of ians and not used budget omnibus bills, they would not be in this that, however, gives the Prime Minister permission to put Canada's awkward, difficult situation. national security at risk.

The finance minister revealed his hand last week at committee, Why did the Prime Minister waive the requisite security review of when he said it would be “absurd” to tell a private company to move the Norsat deal? a project from Montreal to Winnipeg. Why are the Liberals putting corporate profit ahead of the interests of Canadians, and why will Mr. David Lametti (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister they not allow us to properly study this bill? of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.): Mr. Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, national security is a top priority for our government. Speaker, we made a commitment to Canadians to improve the way this place works, and that is exactly what we are doing. The budget All transactions reviewed under the act are subject to a multi- legislation we put forward contains only elements that were actually stage security review process. We can assure the House that the in the budget, unlike the previous government's attempts at getting process was followed to the letter and that no risk to national security around the parliamentary process. was identified. Throughout the process, our security agencies had access to all the information they needed. As for the work done by the Senate, we respect tremendously the hard work senators are doing to examine and make recommenda- tions on bills, but we certainly expect budget bills passed in this We have never compromised on national security, and we never House of Commons to be passed by the Senate. will. Mr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I issue here is about respect for Parliament and passing a fundamental have a lot of respect and admiration for the parliamentary secretary. change to how we fund infrastructure projects. Without proper study The problem is that my question was for the Prime Minister. The is not the way to do it. Prime Minister is the one who needs to answer to Canadians on [Translation] issues of national security. Clearly, there were not enough consultations, and the most blatant If the government insists everything was done by the book, then example relates to Quebec, since the infrastructure bank is going to there is just one more thing for the Prime Minister to do to reassure ignore Quebec laws. A more thorough study of the bill would have Canadians and our NATO, American, and European allies who are allowed us to examine these kinds of issues related to the questioning Canada's national security. infrastructure bank. There is no time for that under the leadership of this Prime Minister. Why is the government refusing to table all of the documents relating to the Norsat scandal? Why is the government so determined to move ahead with this plan for the infrastructure bank? Why is it so determined to keep us Mr. David Lametti (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister from giving it the consideration it deserves? of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.): Mr. Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we listened to our national security experts. We listened to Speaker, we made a commitment over a year and a half ago to their advice. They reviewed the transaction and the facts. We create the infrastructure bank. It was a clear campaign promise. We authorized this transaction based on their advice and recommenda- will continue to invest in the infrastructure that Canadians need. tions. 12904 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Oral Questions I want to reassure the House and all Canadians that we will never U.S. government to review its use of Norsat components. Why? compromise on national security and we will always work to Because the U.S. feels it could put its operations and its people at advance our national interests. risk.

[English] My question is for the Minister of National Defence. Why is the Mrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when it Liberal government putting the security of Canada and allies at risk comes to the Norsat scandal, the Liberals just cannot keep their story all to appease the Chinese government? straight. Mr. David Lametti (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister First, the Prime Minister claimed the U.S. was on board, but it of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.): Mr. was not. Then he said the deal was subject to a strict, national Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. We are not security review, but it was not. In fact, the Prime Minister's own compromising our national security. We are not compromising our cabinet decided to skip that review. national interests. We are in fact trying to balance our national interests. This deal puts Canada and the U.S. at risk. Without rigid security checks, the Liberals still gave it the green light. We relied on a process that put our national security first and foremost. That process was followed. Our national security agencies Will the Liberals listen to the concerns of the U.S., our closet did their due diligence. They investigated the transaction. They had friend and ally, and put Canadian safety first? all the facts in front of them. They gave us their opinion. We are Mr. David Lametti (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister following that opinion. We trust our national security agencies. We of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.): Mr. will never put our security at risk. Speaker, national security is our priority, and we take it very seriously. *** All investments reviewed under the Canada Investment Act are ETHICS subject to a multi-stage national security review process conducted Hon. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime by our security agencies. That process was followed. The national Minister has attended cash-for-access fundraisers with Chinese security community conducted a review, consulted, had the facts in billionaires. He has publicly expressed his admiration for the basic front of it. It gave us the recommendation that this transaction did not dictatorship in China. Chinese interests are funding a statue of his put into jeopardy national security. No transaction would take place father. Now the Prime Minister is fast-tracking the sale of Canadian if it did not uphold and satisfy this criterion. businesses to China without full security reviews. Mrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are hiding how dangerous this deal is for both Canada and Our former ambassador to China has called the Prime Minister's the U.S. Nobody buys that. approach “naive and worrying.” I agree. Michael Wessel from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Has the government House leader asked the Ethics Commissioner Review Commission said, “the sale of Norsat to a Chinese entity about possible conflicts of interest with respect to the Prime Minister raises significant national-security concerns for the United States as and transactions involving China? the company is a supplier to our military.” Mr. David Lametti (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister The Liberals claim they have consulted the U.S., but will not say of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.): Mr. who, why, how, or when. Nothing adds up. Speaker, there is a very clear process envisioned under the Investment Canada Act. It is a multi-step process that requires our Will the minister finally tell Canadians which U.S. officials they national security agencies to look at the facts, get the facts in front of consulted and if they agreed to this deal? them, and make a national security recommendation. We followed Mr. David Lametti (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister that process to the letter. We followed their advice. of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I am surprised the party opposite does not We trust our national security agencies, which have done their trust our national security agencies and does not trust the opinions due diligence. We have undertaken this multi-step process, as it they give. should have been undertaken. We have a process in place under the Investment Canada Act. We *** followed that process. Our security agencies are required to consult, [Translation] investigate, and to have all the facts in front of them. They did that. They gave us their opinion; we followed that opinion. Our national CANADA REVENUE AGENCY security has never been put at risk. Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): ● (1435) Mr. Speaker, at the OECD's instigation, Canada signed dozens of Hon. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada and information sharing agreements with tax havens. Those agreements our allies depend on satellite communications to safely perform were supposed to increase transparency, but all they did was peace and security operations around the world. The news that the facilitate tax evasion. What began as a solution to a problem became Liberal government has fast-tracked the sale of Norsat is causing the a massive gift to big corporations. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12905

Oral Questions Over the past five years, at least $55 billion in profit has not been Speaker, our government is open to investments that create jobs, taxed by the Canada Revenue Agency. We have no way of knowing growth, and long-term prosperity for Canadians. While the official if the Liberals have even used the agreements because they are opposition continues with its scare tactics and fearmongering, let us refusing to tell us and will not answer journalists' questions. talk about the facts. What do they have to hide? Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, The day-to-day operations of the residences will continue to be Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government pledged to fight tax evasion and managed by Retirement Concepts, the same management that was tax havens to ensure that our tax system is fair for all Canadians. I there before. Rules are not changing. The residents will continue to am proud of the leadership we have shown internationally by be subject to the same robust provincial health regulations that have enhancing our collaboration with international partners. We are always applied to them. The residents and health care workers will working hard to make sure our tax system is fair. continue to be protected by the same legislation. Our government will continue to inform Canadians about our efforts to fight tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. We did our homework on this transaction. We assured what we had to make certain, and we have done it. [English] Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Speaker, because that answer was so gosh darn convincing, I have innovation minister assured the House that the government had done another one for the minister. its homework and there was no reason for Canadians to be Her Liberal government is refusing to reveal to Canadians concerned. He passed the buck to B.C. to regulate these homes. important information about tax cheats, even after the minister's promise to reveal important information about tax cheats. The Anbang is a company with murky ownership built on risky minister's office now says that it is not its responsibility to release investments. U.S. and Chinese regulators have raised serious this information. Really? It is not the responsibility of the minister's concerns over its dealings. When the wolves of Wall Street will office to tackle tax evasion and keep the minister's own promises? not touch Anbang, how could the Liberals use vulnerable seniors as If the minister is not running her department, could she tell us who pawns for the Prime Minister's insatiable appetite to cozy up to the heck is? If she will not do her job, will she at least find somebody China? who can? Mr. David Lametti (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister [Translation] of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.): Mr. Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Speaker, the application by Cedar Tree to acquire Retirement Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to offshore-related files, the CRA is Concepts has been approved under the Investment Canada Act. The currently conducting audits on over 820 taxpayers and criminally acquisition will result in a net economic benefit to Canada. As a investigating over 20 cases of tax evasion. Information shared under result of that review, Cedar Tree has agreed to maintain the current tax information sharing agreements and tax treaties is yielding level of full-time and part-time employees, maintain a current results. I want to make it very clear that we will ensure our tax Canadian operator, Retirement Concepts, to continue to manage the system is fair by ferreting out tax cheats and making them pay. business, not close or repurpose any of the existing residences, and *** to financially support the expansion of business. This will remain in place for a significant period of time. [English]

FOREIGN INVESTMENT We reviewed the transaction under the Investment Canada Act. Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is The Government of British Columbia is doing its part— becoming clear that the Prime Minister's approval to sell Canadian senior care facilities to Anbang Insurance of China has placed our The Speaker: The hon. member for Niagara Falls. seniors at risk.

Questions went unanswered when the deal was first inked, but the *** Liberals said everything would be just fine. Now Anbang's chairman, Mr. Wu, has been arrested by Chinese officials on corruption charges. Anbang's assets, including the B.C. retirement JUSTICE homes, are now at risk of being taken over by the Chinese government. Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals keep telling us that they take judicial appointments With so many warning signs, why did the Prime Minister not do seriously, yet to date there are still judicial vacancies right across any due diligence before he approved this deal? the country. Under our Conservative government, we appointed ● (1440) more than 500 judicial appointments. If the Liberals are incapable of Mr. David Lametti (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister doing their job, the opposition would be more than happy to do it for of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.): Mr. them. 12906 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Oral Questions These delays in the criminal justice system must end and [Translation] criminals must be prosecuted. When are the Liberals going to start GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS taking this job seriously and fill all the judicial vacancies without excuses? Mr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' approach to official languages is a joke. Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take my responsibility to The Minister of Canadian Heritage forgot to extend the interim appoint superior court justices in the country incredibly seriously. I commissioner's mandate. As of Saturday, we no longer have an am very pleased to have introduced a new appointments process that official languages watchdog. Before that, the Liberals announced the is open and transparent. I am very happy to have appointed 77 partisan appointment of Madeleine Meilleur with absolutely no justices across the country to the superior courts. I will continue to regard for the law or Parliament. This is all the doing of a minister appoint justices to the superior courts to fill the vacancies. who tells us every day that official languages are a priority for the government. Really? We will continue to work collaboratively with the provinces and When will the government get serious and respect the Official territories to ensure we have substantive solutions to address the Languages Act? realities of the delays that exist in the criminal justice system across Hon. Mélanie Joly (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. the country. Speaker, I would remind my colleague that official languages are important to our government and that the official languages Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC): Mr. commissioner is, too. Speaker, the Minister of Justice likes to say that she is proud of her record. Is the minister proud of the near-historic number of We will have an official languages commissioner. The Office of judicial vacancies? Is the minister proud of the fact that nearly half of the Commissioner of Official Languages is fully operational and I the judicial advisory committees remain vacant? Is the minister will be making some announcements soon. proud of the dozens of serious criminal cases that have been thrown out of court due to her inaction, with thousands more at risk? *** CONSULAR AFFAIRS How can the minister say she is proud of that record with a Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP): Mr. Speaker, straight face? while millions of Canadian children were celebrating Father's Day Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould (Minister of Justice and Attorney yesterday, Raif Badawi's children Najwa, Myriyam and Doudi General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am incredibly proud of lamented their father's absence, which is going on five years now. the 77 meritorious, diverse— Last week, Raif Badawi's three children appealed directly to the Prime Minister when they said, quote, “Mr. [Prime Minister], pick up the phone, call the king of Saudi Arabia, so our father comes Some hon. members: Oh, oh! back." In 2015, before his election of course, the hon. member for The Speaker: Order, please. Members soon will be undoubtedly Papineau urged Mr. Harper to intervene personally in this case. leaving Ottawa and will have the chance to do lots of yelling if they What does the Prime Minister have to say today to the children of want, perhaps in their own ridings outside of Ottawa. However, I ask Raif Badawi? members to try to restrain themselves at least for the next few days. [English] Maybe they will have a chance, on occasion, even to yell “fore” one of these days. Mr. Omar Alghabra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our The hon. Minister of Justice has the floor. government has raised the case of Mr. Badawi at the highest levels of the Saudi government. Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I am We continue to ask for clemency so he can be reunited with his incredibly proud of the 77 substantive, meritorious Superior Court family. I have had the opportunity and the privilege of meeting with justices who I have been able to appoint thus far. More appointments his wife on multiple occasions. I have reassured her that our are going to be coming. government, our Prime Minister, and our Minister of Foreign Affairs are engaged on this case. We will continue to appeal for clemency The appointees represent the diversity that is our great country. I for Mr. Badawi. am going to continue to make these appointments. Likewise, I am going to continue to substantively work with my counterparts in the *** provinces and territories to address the call of the Supreme Court of JUSTICE Canada to ensure that there is a culture change among all actors in the criminal justice system. There is no one solution to this. We are Mr. Robert Oliphant (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for working— decades the Canadian government actively discriminated against gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans, and queer Canadians. Thousands of ● (1445) public servants and military personnel were fired for their sexual orientation, forced to live double lives or risk loss of employment or The Speaker: The hon. member for Drummond. even criminal conviction. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12907

Oral Questions I am proud of our government's efforts to build stronger ties with Mr. Jean Rioux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of my community, working for rights at home and abroad. However, National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my still more remains to be done. Could the Minister of Justice update colleague that in the policy statement, the chief of the defence staff us on steps the government is taking to heal the wounds in the said that it was a great day for our men and women in uniform. LGBTQ2 community? Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould (Minister of Justice and Attorney Yes, we will ensure that our military personnel have the right General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am incredibly proud of equipment to carry out their mission. First and foremost, we have the work our government is doing. commitments to our NORAD and NATO allies. That is why we want to replace our aging equipment, so that our men and women in In Canada we embrace diversity and inclusion. We have to ensure uniform can properly carry out their missions at home and abroad. that everybody has the freedom to be who they are. That is why I am incredibly proud that the Senate passed Bill C-16 last week. I look forward to it receiving royal assent and adding to the Canadian *** Human Rights Code a prohibition against gender identity and gender expression. [English]

We are doing more. We are looking at historic records and the FOREIGN AFFAIRS expungement of them for unjust laws. In this month of pride, I want to celebrate and applaud the— Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC): Mr. The Speaker: The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—East- Speaker, nobody trusts the Liberals to deliver on that promise. man. The Liberals unveiled their defence and foreign policies, and *** surprise, surprise, there were no details of a UN peacekeeping NATIONAL DEFENCE mission in either of them. It has been almost a year since the Prime Minister naively promised 600 troops to a vague UN peacekeeping Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC): Mr. mission. Documents show that the Liberals have turned down five Speaker, the Liberals' mismanagement of the fighter jet replacement UN leadership roles and will not commit to a single UN mission. has gone from a national scandal to an international embarrassment.

Over the weekend, officials were instructed to meet with The Prime Minister has said that Canada is back. Now he is aerospace companies in Paris, then they were told to cancel those backing away from UN peacekeeping missions after stepping back meetings, and then they were told to reschedule them. The Minister from the fight against ISIS. When will the Prime Minister finally step of National Defence has made a complete mess of this file. up and quit embarrassing Canada on the world stage?

Is there anyone on the Liberal benches, anyone at all, who can fix Mr. Matt DeCourcey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister this comedy of errors and actually hold an open competition to of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, replace our aging fighter jets now? Canada did announce that it was back in the world and will play a [Translation] significant role in international and multilateral institutions, includ- Mr. Jean Rioux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of ing as a determined peace-builder returning to peace support National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is operations. That was a commitment of our government, and we committed to conducting an open and transparent competition for the will restore Canada's role in peace support missions. We are taking permanent replacement of the fleet of fighter jets. This competitive our time, thoughtfully, to decide what mission Canada will lead in. process will help ensure that the members of the Canadian Armed We are doing that because that is what Canadians expect of us. Forces have the best aircraft for the long term, while getting the best value for money and generating the most economic benefits for *** Canadians. We have begun to develop the bid solicitation process. The initial consultations with the industry will begin in 2017. [Translation] ● (1450) NATIONAL DEFENCE Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal plan to replace Canada's fighter Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, jets has become a real farce, and the farce has even spread to the CPC): Mr. Speaker, nearly one year after the Prime Minister made international stage. That side of the House cannot even organize a the ill-advised promise to send 600 Canadian soldiers on some sort simple meeting with representatives from the aerospace industry. On of peacekeeping mission, we are still in the dark. top of that, most stakeholders have lost all confidence in the Minister of National Defence, so this file has become a massive boondoggle. The Liberals could have given us the details of this mission in Does the Prime Minister understand the magnitude of the their defence or foreign affairs policies, but once again, it is radio problem? Will he bring his minister into line and immediately silence. We have now learned that Canada has refused five launch an open and transparent process? interesting offers from the UN. 12908 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Oral Questions Could the Prime Minister finally tell our soldiers what is going on, ensuring that all women and girls can live free from violence. This is rather than using them as pawns to try to win a seat on the UN why we are investing $100.9 million in a strategy to prevent and Security Council? address gender-based violence. The strategy we released today is Mr. Jean Rioux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of based on prevention, support for survivors and their families, and National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is steadfast in promoting responsive legal and justice systems; and it will build a renewing its commitment to the United Nations. Maintaining solid foundation for action and fill important gaps in support for international peace and stability, including within the United survivors of gender-based violence. Today was a very good day in Nations, is one of the core missions assigned to the Canadian the fight against gender-based violence. Armed Forces in “Strong, Secure, Engaged”.

The new policy reiterates Canada's determination to make a *** meaningful contribution to the United Nations peacekeeping operations and add value to them. *** INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS [English] Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, VETERANS AFFAIRS CPC): Mr. Speaker, last week the courts ruled that Onion Lake Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP): Mr. Speak- Cree Nation must post its financial transparency information in er, deaths from suicide devastate our community. There are too many accordance with the First Nations Financial Transparency Act. This unanswered questions regarding why so many veterans turn to self- is a great victory for Charmaine Stick and those across the country. harm. Mr. Lionel Desmond not only ended his own life but also the We now have a judgment that clearly states the minister was lives of his daughter, his partner, and his mother. This terrible irresponsible and wrong in not enforcing the act. tragedy needs to be examined. Will the minister take responsibility and call an inquiry into the triple murder-suicide of Lionel Desmond, to shed some light and find a remedy for our veterans who are Will she commit today that she will empower band members and suffering? that no other people will have to take their band to court for [Translation] transparency, yes or no? Mr. Jean Rioux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the suicide of a veteran is Hon. Carolyn Bennett (Minister of Indigenous and Northern always a tragedy. Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government agrees that first nations We are working with the Department of Veterans Affairs to update individuals should be able to access their communities' financial our practices in order to provide better support to veterans and their information. We have already launched national mutual account- families and to ensure that we are not only doing the right things, but ability engagements with first nations, community leaders, and also becoming a leader in the area. members, including both in-person and online engagements. We have also been working on mutual accountability for almost a year In budget 2017, we announced the opening of a centre of with the AFN and the Aboriginal Financial Officers Association. excellence on mental health for post-traumatic stress disorder in Everyone, including first nations governments, wants increased order to encourage the use of best practices and reduce stigma. transparency and accountability, and we will achieve this in the *** coming months, working in partnership with first nations. [English] Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, STATUS OF WOMEN CPC): Mr. Speaker, it has been 18 months, and they are doing Ms. Sheila Malcolmson (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP): Mr. nothing to enforce a law that is on our books. Her excuses have Speaker, that was an inquiry my colleague called for. never held water. Today, the minister unveiled a strategy on gender-based violence. While we do need data and RCMP training, there is absolutely nothing for front-line services to support survivors of sexual assault. Let me read from the court judgment, which states: Every night, 500 women and kids are turned away from domestic violence shelters in Canada—500 of them. There is no evidence before me as to the political or economic reasons why Onion Lake has refused to provide and post specified information. There is, for example, no Why does this so-called anti-violence strategy have absolutely evidence that Onion Lake's commercial interests would be negatively affected. nothing for women fleeing violence and for the front-line workers who support them? ● (1455) Will the minister follow the direction of the judge, or is she going Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of to force more band members to plead their cases in front of the Women, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to courts, yes or no? June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12909

Oral Questions Hon. Carolyn Bennett (Minister of Indigenous and Northern [English] Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government takes mutual account- ability seriously. All contribution agreements between our govern- TAXATION ment and first nations contain strong reporting provisions to ensure that funds are used as intended. We remain committed to establishing Mr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with Canada's a new fiscal relationship with first nations, including to strengthen 150th anniversary just around the corner, Canadians have much to mutual accountability measures. In support of this commitment, my celebrate. We will be celebrating with an amazing craft beer, wine, department is currently engaging, from coast to coast to coast, with and spirits. However, in typical Liberal fashion, as we raise a glass to first nations leadership and community members. celebrate Canada, they are finding new ways to raise taxes to pay for their out-of-control spending. This year and every following year, Hon. Michelle Rempel (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals will be raising taxes on beer, wine, and spirits, despite that is a lot of words that say that the minister is refusing to enforce the fact that we already pay some of the highest taxes in the world. the law. Why can she not just stand up and say, “I am refusing to enforce the law here”, and does she realize that, as a result of her Could the minister please explain that the only promise he is negligence, band members are having to go to court to get willing to keep is a promise to raise taxes and tax the fun out of our information to which they are rightfully entitled? Canada Day celebrations?

Why is the member defending the status quo instead of doing Hon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor (Parliamentary Secretary to the what is right for first nations communities? Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to Hon. Carolyn Bennett (Minister of Indigenous and Northern rise in the House and talk about the good work our government is Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we all agree. The government agrees doing. The first thing we did when we took office was lower taxes that first nations individuals should be able to access their for middle-class Canadians, while raising them for the wealthiest communities' financial information. We have launched a national 1%. We also put in place the Canada child benefit program, which mutual accountability engagement with first nations, including in- has lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. We also person and online engagements. Everyone, including first nations, increased the guaranteed income supplement by 10% for low-income wants increased transparency and accountability, and we will achieve seniors. this by working in close collaboration with first nations. We will keep on working for Canadians. That is exactly what we *** will be doing. [Translation] *** CANADA REVENUE AGENCY AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD Mr. Greg Fergus (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, we learned that search warrants had been executed in the Mr. Wayne Stetski (Kootenay—Columbia, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Toronto area and in the United Kingdom in connection with a I recently met with executive members of the BC Fruit Growers' criminal investigation into a transatlantic GST/HST fraud scheme. Association and the Canadian Horticultural Council, representing Reports indicate that this “carousel scheme” netted $52 million in produce growers in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia. They told fraudulent tax refunds and credits. me that Canadian growers suffer greatly when their buyer fails to pay them due to bankruptcy. Would the Minister of National Revenue tell the House what she is doing to combat fraud? The Standing Committee on Agriculture unanimously urged the minister to develop a payment protection model for Canada's ● (1500) growers, but nothing has happened. It has been a year. When will the Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, government take action to protect our fruit and vegetable growers? Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hull—Aylmer for his question. [Translation]

Our government is committed to fighting tax evasion and tax Mr. Jean-Claude Poissant (Parliamentary Secretary to the avoidance. That is why we invested close to $1 billion in our last two Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our budgets to ensure we have the tools we need tackle this problem government is absolutely committed to the financial success of the effectively. fruit and vegetable industry.

Preliminary results indicate that we will recover over $13 billion We are looking at ways we can support this important Canadian during the fiscal year ending March 31. industry by collaborating on a national nutrition policy as part of the next strategic framework. We support the industry in our budget and Our government is committed to cracking down on tax cheats and will continue to marshal science, innovation, and competition for the bringing them to justice with the help of our international partners. benefit of all agricultural sectors and producers across the country. 12910 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Oral Questions [English] pills hidden in 500-page tomes. The infrastructure bank is a bad idea that is going to weaken Quebec to the benefit of wealthy investors. PUBLIC SAFETY Ms. Pam Damoff (Oakville North—Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Will the Prime Minister listen to Quebec, the farmers, and even Speaker, far too many Canadians still face violence every day simply the Senate and remove the infrastructure bank from Bill C-44? because of their gender expression, gender identity, or perceived gender. Our status of women committee, of which I am vice-chair, [English] studied this issue, and I think we would all agree it is time for us to take action. Hon. Amarjeet Sohi (Minister of Infrastructure and Commu- nities, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect us to build the best Budget 2017 committed $100.9 million for a gender-based public transit to reduce the gridlock facing our communities. They violence strategy. Could the parliamentary secretary to the minister want us to invest in more affordable housing to create opportunities of status of women update the House on the status of this strategy? for Canadians. They want to invest in recreational and cultural Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of infrastructure. Women, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Oakville North—Burlington for the question, and for her That is exactly what our infrastructure plan, an ambitious $186- leadership on gender equality. billion plan, will do. With respect to the jurisdictions of provinces I was pleased to join the Minister of Status of Women this and municipalities, the bank will do that. morning as she announced our government's strategy to prevent and [Translation] address gender-based violence. Our strategy is based on prevention, support for survivors and their families, and promoting responsive Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I do not legal and justice systems. Our approach will build a solid foundation understand what the Liberals are missing. The way Bill C-44 is for action. drafted, the infrastructure bank can ignore the laws of Quebec and circumvent municipal bylaws. No agricultural zoning, and the power It is time for Canada's strategy to prevent and address gender- to expropriate: that is what will come out of Bill C-44. We have said based violence. it, the constitutionalists have said it, the National Assembly has said *** it, the farmers have said it, and even the Senate has said it. FINANCE When will this government listen to us and split its bill to have a Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, second look at its infrastructure bank? CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals just cannot help themselves. They love picking winners and losers by imposing big-government [English] regulations. Now the Liberals are targeting credit unions by prohibiting their use of the terms “bank” and “banking”. This Hon. Amarjeet Sohi (Minister of Infrastructure and Commu- means if a credit union uses a term like “personal banking” or nities, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to be working with our “online banking” in their promotions, they run afoul of the rules and Quebec caucus to deliver on the commitment that we made to all could face penalties between $500,000 and $5 million. Canadians, including the Province of Quebec. A $1.3 billion investment in Montreal's transit system will create 34,000 jobs in Could the finance minister explain to Canadians why his that region. government is being so petty in the targeting of credit unions? Is it because all of his friends on Bay Street are telling him to do this? That is delivering for Canadians. That is delivering for the ● (1505) Province of Quebec. As far as the legislation is concerned, we are Hon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor (Parliamentary Secretary to the very confident that the way it is being done will respect the local Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the credit union system is jurisdictions in Quebec and in other provinces. an important part of the Canadian economy and contributes to competition in financial services. Credit unions are key suppliers of *** financing for small and medium-sized businesses, and also for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We have encouraged the [Translation] Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to get in touch with the credit unions and to work collaboratively to ensure they SOFTWOOD LUMBER come up with a solution that can work for both. Mrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, forestry *** workers are demonstrating across Quebec today to call on the [Translation] government to negotiate a fair and balanced agreement on softwood lumber. That may seem obvious, but the forestry sector has learned INFRASTRUCTURE not to trust Ottawa. Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes— Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure bank needs to be Arguing over loan guarantees has cost weeks of work for workers, split off from Bill C-44. Enough with these massive bills and poison who are more than ready for a bit of stability. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12911

Government Orders Will the government make a solemn promise to refuse to sign any The Speaker: It being 3:10 p.m., pursuant to order made on sellout agreement that could hurt forestry workers? Tuesday, May 30, 2017, the House will now proceed to the taking of [English] the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage Hon. Jim Carr (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. of Bill C-49. Speaker, I appreciate the question because it is a chance to remind Call in the members. the House of the significance of the measures that we have undertaken to make sure, both in the short term and in the long term, [Before the Clerk announced the results of the vote] that the forestry industry is respected in Canada. ● (1515) That includes $605 million from the Export Development [English] Corporation. It includes very timely measures to expand export Ms. Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I attempted to rise to vote yea markets. That includes taking the leaders of the industry in Quebec before you called for the votes on the nay side, and I do not think my to China to begin to make the argument that our wood is the best vote was recorded. wood in the world. The Speaker: I thank the hon. member. That will be recorded We are very proud of that initiative. We are very proud of how we accordingly. have stood up for the forestry— ● (1520) The Speaker: The hon. member for Drummond on a point of [Translation] order. (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the *** following division:) [Translation] (Division No. 337) PRIVILEGE YEAS COMMISSIONER OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGES Members Aldag Alghabra Mr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I Alleslev Amos wish to point out that my parliamentary privileges, and those of the Anandasangaree Arseneault other members of the House, have been violated. Arya Ayoub Badawey Bagnell Baylis Beech The Commissioner of Official Languages reports not only to the Bennett Bittle government, but also to Parliament. As a result, Parliament must Blair Boissonnault know who the Commissioner of Official Languages is so it can Bossio Bratina Breton Brison address this individual, ask questions, and receive information. Caesar-Chavannes Carr Casey (Cumberland—Colchester) Casey (Charlottetown) Today, I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage who the current Chagger Chan Chen Cormier Commissioner of Official Languages is and at what time we will Cuzner Dabrusin know when a new Commissioner of Official Languages is Damoff DeCourcey appointed. Dhaliwal Dhillon Di Iorio Drouin Dubourg Duclos We currently do not know who the official languages commis- Duguid Duncan (Etobicoke North) sioner is. Perhaps the government knows, but if we parliamentarians Dzerowicz Easter Ehsassi El-Khoury do not know, then this is a violation of our rights as parliamentarians, Ellis Erskine-Smith because commissioners do not report to the government, but to Eyking Eyolfson Parliament as a whole. Fergus Fillmore Finnigan Fisher ● (1510) Fonseca Fortier Fragiskatos Fraser (West Nova) The Speaker: I thank the hon. member. I will look into this matter Fraser (Central Nova) Fry Fuhr Gerretsen and, if necessary, come back to the House. Goldsmith-Jones Gould Graham Grewal Hajdu Hardie Hehr Holland Housefather Hussen GOVERNMENT ORDERS Hutchings Iacono Joly Jones [Translation] Jordan Jowhari Kang Khalid TRANSPORTATION MODERNIZATION ACT Khera Lambropoulos Lametti Lamoureux The House resumed from June 16 consideration of the motion that Lapointe Lauzon (Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation) LeBlanc Lebouthillier Bill C-49, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and other Lefebvre Leslie acts respecting transportation and to make related and consequential Levitt Lightbound Lockhart Long amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a Longfield Ludwig committee. Maloney Massé (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia) 12912 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Points of Order

May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) McCrimmon Saroya Schmale McDonald McGuinty Shields Shipley McKay McKenna Ste-Marie Stetski McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam) McLeod (Northwest Territories) Stewart Strahl Mendès Mendicino Stubbs Sweet Mihychuk Miller (Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des- Thériault Tilson Soeurs) Trost Van Kesteren Monsef Morrissey Van Loan Vecchio Murray Nassif Viersen Wagantall Ng O'Connell Warkentin Webber Oliphant O'Regan Weir Wong Ouellette Paradis Yurdiga Zimmer–— 114 Peschisolido Peterson Petitpas Taylor Philpott PAIRED Picard Poissant Nil Qualtrough Rioux Robillard Rodriguez The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill Romanado Rota Rudd Ruimy stands referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infra- Sahota Saini structure and Communities. Samson Sangha Sarai Scarpaleggia (Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a Schiefke Schulte committee) Serré Shanahan Sheehan Sidhu (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon) *** Sidhu (Brampton South) Sohi Sorbara Spengemann [English] Tabbara Tan Tassi Trudeau POINTS OF ORDER Vandal Vandenbeld Vaughan Whalen ORAL QUESTIONS Wilkinson Wilson-Raybould Wrzesnewskyj Young Ms. Pam Damoff (Oakville North—Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Zahid–— 161 Speaker, I am rising on a point of order to do with decorum in this NAYS House. I asked a question of the Parliamentary Secretary for Status Members of Women today, and in spite of the fact that he stands right in front of me, I could not hear his answer. Aboultaif Albas Albrecht Ambrose Anderson Arnold In 1982, Margaret Mitchell stood in this House and was heckled Aubin Barlow when she talked about violence against women. I would have hoped Barsalou-Duval Beaulieu that 35 years later, members of this House would stop heckling when Benson Benzen Bergen Bernier we are talking about gender-based violence. I should be able to hear Berthold Bezan the hon. member's answer to my question, especially with him sitting Blaikie Blaney (North Island—Powell River) Blaney (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis) Boulerice right in front of me. Boutin-Sweet Brassard Brosseau Cannings The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for Oakville North— Caron Carrie Burlington for her point of order. I urge all members to show respect Choquette Christopherson for this place, and I would prefer for each other as well. Clarke Cooper Cullen Deltell Diotte Doherty The hon. member for Perth—Wellington is rising on a point of Dubé Dusseault order. Duvall Eglinski Falk Fortin APPOINTMENT OF CLERK OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS Gallant Généreux Genuis Gill Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I Gladu Gourde understand that in a few moments, the government will be moving Hardcastle Harder Hoback Hughes motion No. 635 on the Order Paper to appoint, pursuant to Standing Jeneroux Johns Order 111.1, the new Clerk of the House of Commons. I believe you Kelly Kitchen Kmiec Kusie will find, Mr. Speaker, upon review of the evidence, that this motion Kwan Lake should be ruled out of order at this time. Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry) Laverdière Leitch Liepert As you know, the ancient rule of anticipation is one that is little Lobb MacGregor MacKenzie Maguire employed in its application to this body, but nonetheless, it is Malcolmson Marcil instructive to the operation of the House. I would suggest that in the Masse (Windsor West) Mathyssen McCauley (Edmonton West) McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo) matter at hand, the application of this rule is appropriate and Moore Motz necessary. Nantel Nater Nicholson O'Toole The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is Paul-Hus Pauzé Plamondon Quach presently seized with the proposed nomination and has met for Rankin Rayes barely 45 minutes on this matter, but it has not yet reported back to Reid Rempel Richards Ritz the House either in the affirmative or the negative. It is for this Saganash Sansoucy reason that the rule of anticipation would apply. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12913

Points of Order I would note that House of Commons Procedure and Practice, practice of the House, particularly in dealing with the subject matter second edition, at page 560, accurately notes: at hand. While the rule of anticipation is part of the Standing Orders in the British House of Commons, it has never been so in the Canadian House of Commons. Furthermore, Standing Order 28 of the House of Commons of the United references to past attempts to apply this British rule to Canadian practice are Kingdom states: inconclusive. In determining whether a discussion is out of order on the ground of anticipation, regard shall be had by the Speaker to the probability of the matter anticipated being However, it goes on to note: brought before the House within a reasonable time. The rule is dependent on the principle which forbids the same question from being decided twice within the same session. ● (1525) In this circumstance, I would submit that going forward with this I would draw your attention to Erskine May, 24th edition, at page motion at this time anticipates that the procedure and House affairs 390, which states: committee would not submit a report to the House in the negative. In determining whether a discussion is out order on the ground of anticipation, the probability of the matter anticipating being discussed within a reasonable time must I draw your attention to Beauchesne's sixth edition, which is be considered...and recent practice has been to interpret the rule so as to not, in the instructive on this point. Page 154, citation 514(2), states: current circumstances, to impose what might risk being unreasonable restrictions on debate. Debate on a government motion effectively blocks debate on a notice of motion for the consideration of the report of a committee which deals with essentially the same subject. Had the motion for consideration of the committee report been moved, For greater clarity, I would interpret the 30-day period envisioned it would have had precedence over the government motion and blocked debate on it. by Standing Order 111(1) of this place to be reasonable time. Once a motion has been transferred for debate under Government Orders it becomes Further, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the proposed motion was put the government's decision and the government's responsibility to decide whether it without amendment for debate. Therefore, allowing the motion to go will proceed with its motion. It is at that point that the anticipation rule might become operative in the sense that the government motion, if proceeded with, might block forward at this time would effectively eliminate any potential for consideration of the committee report. further debate, analyses, witnesses, or discussion at the only venue open for such action: the procedure and House affairs committee. It further states, at page 154, in citation 513(1): In determining whether a discussion is out of order on the grounds of anticipation, Erskine May goes on to note, at page 398: the Speaker must have regard to the probability of the matter anticipated being ...the rule against anticipation...as strictly enforced earlier times, was that a matter brought before the House within a reasonable [period of] time. must not be anticipated if it were contained in a more effective form of proceeding by which it is sought to be anticipated... The circumstances previewed in Beauchesne's are precisely the scenario in which we find ourselves today. The matter is very likely Again, it is the established practice of the House, as noted in to return to the House in a more appropriate form, that being a report Beauchesne's, that a motion on a committee report would have been from the procedure and House affairs committee, the committee to a more effective means rather than government action. which the matter was referred, pursuant to the Standing Orders, and the matter can and will be brought to the House within a reasonable Further to this, Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to a period of time one way or another. Either the matter will be reported Canadian authority on the matter. Parliamentary Procedure and back by the committee within 30 days, or the 30 days provided by Practice in the Dominion of Canada, edited by John George the Standing Orders will have expired. Either way, the matter will Bourinot, is one of the accepted authorities of this place. At page 339 have been dealt with conclusively within a reasonable period of time, of Bourinot, it is stated: as envisioned by the authorities. The old rule of Parliament reads: “That a question being once made, and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again, but stand as the judgment of Further, last Thursday I filed with the Standing Committee on the house. Procedure and House Affairs a certificate to obtain evidence from particular persons, pursuant to Standing Order 122. This is an echo of Erskine May's 1844 A treatise on the law, privileges, proceedings and usage of Parliament, at page 186, which Mr. Speaker, you are both the Speaker of this place and a lawyer. establishes the same principle. The analogy I would use is one of a legal nature. In this case, judgment is being sought prior to the evidence being presented. I As both Bourinot and May would foresee, were this motion to go know you would not accept this in a court of law, and neither should ahead, it would forestall a committee report and concurrence in that it be accepted in this place. report, thereby, the rule of anticipation would be offended.

I am well aware that the Standing Orders of the House do not Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would submit to you that a report from explicitly state the rule of anticipation. However, I would draw to procedure and House affairs committee prior to the question being your attention, Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 1, which states: put on the nomination is clearly the established practice of the In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by other Order of the House, House. procedural questions shall be decided by the Speaker or Chair of Committees of the Whole, whose decisions shall be based on the usages, forms, customs and precedents I would draw to your attention the 47th report of the Standing of the House of Commons of Canada and on parliamentary tradition in Canada and other jurisdictions, so far as they may be applicable to the House. Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, 38th Parliament, 1st Session, in which the committee recommended to the House that the On this matter, I would submit that the rule of anticipation is House ratify the appointment of Ms. Audrey Elizabeth O'Brien to the evident in comparable jurisdictions but has also become a usual position of Clerk of the House of Commons. 12914 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Points of Order I would note that the now Clerk Emeritus's appointment was the make the case that the rule of anticipation has ever been codified in first made under the provisions now contained in Standing Order 111 our Standing Orders, but rather that we could have reference to it. (1). That report was prior to a vote in the House of Commons. While the Clerk of the House of Commons has only been This is a very critical matter for all members of this place. I have appointed once prior pursuant to current rules of this place, it is to express deep discomfort, because the Clerk will be someone with nonetheless instructive to the process and vision by those who have whom we will all work and on whom we will all rely, and there does sat in this place before us. seem to be a matter of extreme haste. The position was posted with a deadline of February of this year, while our current Clerk has been in I well recognize there may be instances in the past where a the position in an acting capacity since 2014. I feel there is government has moved in a similar way as the current government is something of a rush that may undermine the new person and the now moving. I know of none off the top of my head. However, the government's intent to name a new Clerk. fact that there were no objections in those cases may imply the agreement of the House. This is not the case here. Objection is being The member for Perth—Wellington raises a very strong point, stated. because the parliamentary committee on procedure and House affairs In light of the foregoing evidence presented, I would encourage had begun the work of asking questions and pursuing this matter. you, Mr. Speaker, to rule this motion out of order until such time that The appointment of our previous Clerk was by consensus; that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has clearly would be the preferred route here. reported back to the House of Commons or the expiration of the 30 days, as provided for in Standing Order 111(1). I appreciate your time, Mr. Speaker, in letting me weigh in to support the point of order by the hon. member for Perth— I might add as well, Mr. Speaker, that there are rumours around Wellington. this precinct that you yourself were not consulted on this proposed nomination. If this is the case, and I hope it is not, it is shameful and SPEAKER'S RULING an offence to the position that you hold and the great respect in which we hold you in this place, as the defender of the rights and privileges of this place. The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for Perth—Wellington, the hon. Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast ● (1530) Guard, and the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for raising The Speaker: Does the hon. Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the the point of order and for their comments on this point of order. Canadian Coast Guard wish to rise on the same point of order? Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the I want to refer them and colleagues to House of Commons Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): I do, Mr. Speaker. With respect, we Procedure and Practice, second edition, 2009, by O'Brien and Bosc, would submit to you that my colleague has raised an argument at page 458, which refers to the question of the committee and says: without merit. The committee is not obliged to report to the House on the appointment, even if it I would draw your attention to Standing Order 111.(1), which has been examined. states: Where the government intends to appoint an Officer of Parliament, the Clerk of Then it says, down below: the House...the name of the proposed appointee shall be deemed referred to the appropriate standing committee, which may consider the appointment during a The notice of motion to ratify the appointment may be given at any time during period of not more than thirty days. this 30-day period, whether the committee has reported to the House or not, and the motion may be adopted before the end of this period. The rules are clear. The committee may study the proposed nomination, which it has. There is no requirement to report back to the House of Commons on the matter before a vote in the House is Both of these suggest that in fact the report from the committee is taken. not required in order to proceed.

Page 1014, of the second edition, House of Commons Procedure Also, footnote 248 says: and Practice, states: As in the case of the procedure for appointments by Order in Council and In the Thirty-Ninth Parliament, the name of the candidate for the position of certificates of nomination, a committee that receives an order of reference in relation Commissioner of Official Languages (Graham Fraser) was referred to the Standing to the proposed appointment of an Officer of Parliament has no obligation to consider Committee on Official Languages on September 18, 2006. The notice of motion to the matter. ratify the appointment was given on September 27, 2006, and the motion was concurred in on September 29, 2006. I would urge, Mr. Speaker, and suggest that we could proceed to the business as planned this afternoon. I am informed that in fact in that case the committee did not Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, report. you appear poised to rule on this matter. The hon. member for Perth—Wellington was very thorough and As a result of these provisions, I am prepared to allow the motion impressive in the academic rigour of his presentation. He did not to proceed. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12915

Routine Proceedings ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS [English] ● (1535) ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT [Translation] Hon. Scott Brison (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE moved for leave to introduce Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Access FISHERIES AND OCEANS to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government response to the report of the Standing Committee on *** Fisheries and Oceans entitled “Newfoundland and Labrador's Northern Cod Fishery: Charting a new sustainable future”. Of [Translation] course, I thank the committee and all our colleagues for their excellent work. COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE *** PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS [English] Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS honour to table, in both official languages, the 34th report of the Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, entitled Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): “Question of Privilege Regarding the Free Movement of Members of Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to Parliament within the Parliamentary Precinct”. table, in both official languages, the government's responses to five ● (1540) petitions. AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD *** [Translation] Mr. Pat Finnigan (Miramichi—Grand Lake, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS the seventh report of the Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food Mr. Mark Holland (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister regarding its study on debt in the agriculture sector and its effects. of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, [English] the 2016 annual report on the RCMP's use of the law enforcement justification provisions. VETERANS AFFAIRS [English] Mr. Neil Ellis (Bay of Quinte, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the This report addresses the RCMP's use of specific provisions honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the within the law enforcement justification regime, which is set out in Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, entitled “Mental Health of sections 25(1) to sections 25(4) of the Criminal Code. This report Canadian Veterans: A Family Purpose”. also documents the nature of the investigations in which these provisions were used. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report. *** Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE ACT Conservative members on Veterans Affairs committee wish to Hon. Jim Carr (for the Minister of Minister of Public Safety provide a supplementary report on “Mental Health of Canadian and Emergency Preparedness) moved for leave to introduce Bill Veterans: A Family Purpose”. C-56, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Abolition of Early Parole Act. It is the opinion of Conservative members on committee that the (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) final version of the ACVA report failed to accurately portray the effect that the use of mefloquine by the Canadian Armed Forces had *** on our veterans and their families with respect to post-traumatic [Translation] stress injuries and occupational stress illnesses and the steps required to be taken in order to help veterans and their families. FEDERAL SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ACT Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and The supplementary report, in our view, is a better indication of the Climate Change, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-57, An testimony from witnesses at Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act. and calls for supplementary recommendations based on that (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) testimony. 12916 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Routine Proceedings While there was much to agree on with the report on how to help [Translation] veterans and their families dealing with PTSD and mental health issues, the majority on committee failed in its obligation to consider COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE that testimony of veterans relevant to the study. As a result, Conservative members on committee are compelled to present this OFFICIAL LANGUAGES supplementary report to the House. Mr. Bernard Généreux (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska INDIGENOUS AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS —Rivière-du-Loup, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I move that the second report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, presented Hon. MaryAnn Mihychuk (Kildonan—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr. on Wednesday, June 15, be concurred in. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the unanimous ninth report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous I am pleased to rise today, because it gives me the opportunity to and Northern Affairs, entitled “Breaking Point: The Suicide Crisis in speak about a report published by the Standing Committee on Indigenous Communities”. Official Languages, more specifically, the one dealing with the Translation Bureau. The committee wishes to express our heartfelt gratitude to all those who bravely presented to our committee and shared their As committee members, we heard a number of witnesses express personal experiences, providing us with a deeper understanding of their concerns about the Translation Bureau and the changes that the the crisis facing indigenous communities and Canada as a nation. government could make. Those witnesses voiced their concerns, as well as the Translation Bureau's concerns, in light of the Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government's plans to try a new approach when it comes to government table a comprehensive response to this report. freelancers, namely, hiring more of the lowest bidders. *** Of course, a number of witnesses appeared. Members from the INCOME TAX ACT Association of Translators and Interpreters appeared on a number of occasions. They made representations to our respective offices, to Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) moved for leave to the opposition members, saying that it made no sense since this introduce Bill C-362, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act approach would undermine the quality of translation and interpreta- (economic substance). tion in the House of Commons and in all the committees. That is why we have worked very hard to ensure that we can avoid this kind He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce a bill of situation. We know full well that, whether in the private sector or that would amend the Income Tax Act of Canada. here in the government, if the lowest bidder is always chosen, the [Translation] quality of the final product tends to suffer.

I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. member for In our circumstances, it cannot all come down to money. Let us be Sherbrooke, who seconded this bill. clear: translation in the House of Commons, just like in all the committees, must be done properly. It is certainly important not to [English] choose the lowest bidder all the time. Everyone agrees that costs inevitably become a factor, but at some point, we must ensure that This bill would crack down on abusive tax avoidance by denying we have high-quality translation and interpretation. tax breaks to transactions that lack real economic substance. These empty transactions, designed solely to avoid taxes, would no longer Members of the International Association of Conference Inter- qualify for tax breaks. preters came and testified. They were united and spoke loud and clear to all parliamentarians to make sure that we did not take this Three years ago, I introduced a similar bill. Dr. Robert McMechan course of action. They expressed their concerns more than once. I was present in the gallery. He was an expert in the field and was want to congratulate them today because they really took on this calling for this reform in his acclaimed book on international tax government provision, which would have had real consequences on evasion. He has since passed away. Today I want to formally translation quality. recognize his years of service to Canada as general counsel in the tax litigation section of the Department of Justice, and also acknowledge It would have had a serious adverse impact on the work that how valuable his expertise was to me in preparing this bill. parliamentarians must do here. I do not wear my earpiece while I am talking because I would hear myself, but inevitably and on a regular The bill would bring our laws up to speed with places like the basis, all of us here in the House need proper and professional United States, where President Obama used a similar law to raise translation and interpretation services. billions for health care. It would build trust in the fairness and integrity of our tax system and recover hundreds of millions of The International Association of Conference Interpreters, among dollars in lost revenue so we can offer better public services to others, represents people who do exceptional work. Their services Canadians. I look forward to discussing it with all members. are not just required in the House and in committees, they are in (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) demand around the world when there is a need for interpreters. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12917

Routine Proceedings Once again, the Standing Committee on Official Languages and clear: opposition parties must be consulted before appointments are in particular the government have official languages obligations. The made. government must do all in its power to ensure that official languages are respected without compromise throughout Canada and in all committees. In this regard, the minister told the House on a number of occasions that she had consulted with the opposition parties. My As a result of the excellent work done by our committee, the colleague from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Char- government was forced to reverse course, on February 9. The levoix received a call from the minister, who informed her of the Minister of Public Services and Procurement confirmed that the Liberals' chosen candidate. Mr. Speaker, if I call you to tell you that I government would step back from these changes. The committee have chosen a candidate, I am telling you something, I am not asking worked accordingly and acted on behalf of all the people involved in you whether you think that person is a good choice. After everything the world of interpretation and translation. Luckily, the government that went down in this file, no one can deny it was botched from the has seen reason since the committee, as I was saying earlier, has had beginning. numerous meetings, even inside the caucuses, which is actually quite rare. We had the opportunity to meet with people from the International Association of Conference Interpreters who have been applying pressure. As I personally mentioned it in committee, those Now, an appointment process is under way to fill several people did so in a very professional manner. important positions, including the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the Commissioner of Official Languages, ● (1545) although the process had to be started over in the latter case. That case was particularly tainted by the close ties between Ms. Meilleur It was a great opportunity to show that we can work together on and the Liberal Party. decisions that are important to the government and particularly to us as parliamentarians.

On February 9, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement When Ms. Meilleur appeared before the committee, she told us confirmed that the government would not be going ahead with the that she thought she had no longer been a member of the Liberal changes it had been about to make, luckily. The committee asked the Party of Canada since December 2016 or January 2017. In reality, minister to meet the commitments she made publicly regarding the she was a member of the party up until a week before her Translation Bureau on February 9. The report mentioned the appointment was officially approved. That was a bombshell. The following, among other things: “Hire a new CEO and ensure the candidate and the Liberal Party obviously enjoyed close ties, as person is in place before 31 March 2017.” Ms. Meilleur had contributed not only to the Liberal Party of Canada, but also to the Prime Minister's leadership race. One can Recently, we learned that the position had been filled, but two understand how this might have the appearance of a partisan months later. This is an example of the problems with the current appointment. government. We met last fall, the report was signed in June, when it was a progress report in February, and an appointment was supposedly imminent, but it did not materialize for another four The 338 members of the House, especially those on the months. government side, have a duty to find candidates whose neutrality is beyond reproach, as this is a very important element of democracy. This is just one example among many. Allow me to change direction a bit and talk about the Commissioner of Official Languages. My colleague from the NDP asked the minister who ● (1550) the official languages commissioner is right now since the former commissioner's term ended on Friday. We have no new information on this. The minister reiterates that we will be briefed soon. In my I would like to remind the current government that, when it was in opinion, it is a little late to say “soon”, since we are officially without opposition, it never wasted an opportunity to lambaste the an official languages commissioner, according to the terms of the government of the day over its appointment; even in the absence six-month contract signed by the outgoing commissioner last of any kind of ties, it still tried to say we made the wrong choice. December.

This once again demonstrates conclusively that the government is dragging its feet on all appointments, whether to the judiciary or Now that these members are in government, they are doing even otherwise. The official languages commissioner appointment process worse than what others have done in the past. There must be a was an utter travesty and a complete debacle. significant distance between the government and those who would assume such crucial roles in our democracy as Commissioner of The government often prides itself on being open and transparent, Official Languages or Ethics Commissioner. These people must be and it did so often during the complete debacle that unfolded over a far removed from all decision-making bodies, as they are the ones six-week period to appoint the Commissioner of Official Languages. who ensure government policy stays on track. They are the ones who Having a website where people can apply is all well and good, but must ensure compliance with the spirit of official languages or ethics that is not what it means to be open and transparent. The law is very legislation, for instance. 12918 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Routine Proceedings The report on the Translation Bureau contained several other I do not understand how there are still ministers strutting around points, including ensuring that a CEO be appointed. It appears that saying that official languages are important and that they are doing this was done, but it took four months. The report also called for the all they can to improve official languages on Parliament Hill, while, creation of a chief quality officer position that would be filled by a as recently as last week, a report from the interim official languages language professional that reports directly to the CEO. The idea, commissioner decried an unbelievable lack of respect for official then, is to create a new position tasked with ensuring employees' languages on the Hill. language skills are of the highest quality. I think it should be noted that they are not to compete with external suppliers. In order to survive in a very competitive industry, they must be able to compete with the agents of the associations that serve the government every Whenever 10 government employees, all public servants here in day. Ottawa, gather in a room together, you can bet they will all switch to English if even just one of them is an English speaker. It is not that The report also recommended setting up a service line that federal people are not bilingual, it is because they feel obliged to speak institutions can call to obtain advice on linguistic services. These are English when one person does not speak their language. things that the Minister of Public Services and Procurement has committed to doing. It was also expected that the Translation Bureau would hire at least 50 students a year over the next 50 years to ensure succession. That is another very important point. Inevitably, there remains a lot to be done here on Parliament Hill All these issues came up during testimony. We have also asked to ensure the respect of both official languages, starting with the that initiatives be implemented to increase the number of interpreter ministers’ offices that must ensure communication in both languages graduates from recognized universities to support additional hiring with all Canadians, especially by e-mail. by the Translation Bureau and the language industry. The purpose of all this was to ensure the quality of the French language and the number of men and women we need to do the job. We also wanted to ensure the Translation Bureau would restore the I think that the government still has a lot of work to do. It is co-op program. That program was scrapped by the former certainly guilty of dragging its feet. The Minister of Canadian government. I must say that we made tough choices at times, and Heritage may still be patting herself on the back and saying that she that was one of them. Unfortunately, the consequences, although is doing all she can, it clearly is not enough. limited, were still felt. We also wanted to ensure the Translation Bureau would continue to operate its network of regional offices and that it would work There were also other recommendations in this report, such as closely with the Canada School of Public Service. We hope that the making sure that, following the decision to cancel the request for courses offered to new public servants include training on the standing offer, the bureau develops a new approach for awarding Government of Canada's language obligations, including in transla- contracts based on areas of expertise and further consultations with tion, as of the spring of 2017. representatives across the interpretation industry. This brings me to the use of French in the public service. I witnessed this first-hand last week when, after the heritage minister appeared before our committee, my assistant gave me an email that we had just received from the office of the Minister of Environment. Again, the government has come to a decision without bothering It was in English only. to consult. It normally never stops consulting, but in this case it never bothered to consult. It reached a unilateral decision and Let me quote the catchphrase of the Prime Minister who said that decreed that this is how things were going to happen. It is no we had to appoint a gender-balanced cabinet “because it is 2015”. surprise, then, that their solution does not meet the needs of the industry or of this institution which is the House of Commons. Now it is 2017, and it is about time for the government to ensure that each of us receives communications from all parliamentarians, particularly from ministers' offices, in both official languages. ● (1555) In closing, the committee wanted to thank the translators for their The minister mainly dropped by to tell us, as she did once more extraordinary contribution. They have been extremely professional. today in the House, that official languages are important and they are When they appeared before the committee, I told them they deserved doing everything they can, but, clearly, they are not doing enough. our thanks because they had proven that there is indeed a way to The simple truth is that they could not care less. change things when we do not agree with a government's decision or approach, and that we can do so respectfully of institutions and The minister responsible for a major department had sent me a individuals alike. When things are done professionally and message with some news about my constituency. That is great, but respectfully, it is easier for people to accept what is being asked of perhaps the minister could have thought to send it in both official them. That is why the government came to change its mind in light languages. of the committee’s work. I think that was a good thing. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12919

Routine Proceedings Among other official languages issues that have come up over the was the late Mauril Bélanger and I who had suggested that study, in past year, the committee several times raised that of the appointment light of all the concerns around the issue at that time. of the Commissioner of Official Languages. This appointment was an absolute debacle. I sincerely hope that the government will The Translation Bureau was going through a terrible crisis and acknowledge it for what it was and will make sure to consult next haemorrhaging expertise. The unions indicated that there was a lot of time it embarks upon a so-called open and transparent exercise. It is stress, that a lot of people were taking sick leave, that the Translation not just a matter of entering one's name on a website. That is not how Bureau was literally emptying out. we want things to happen. We want to be consulted. Consulting means coming to see us and deciding together whether a chosen candidate is a good fit for the job. In matters of official languages, We all worked hard on the Committee and we presented a very the commissioner must be totally politically neutral in order to act as solid report that had a lot of good points. Unfortunately, we had a a watchdog for all Canadians. hard time knowing who was in charge of official languages. We are still asking today and no one can tell us who is currently official ● (1600) languages commissioner. We have a major problem, and it is always The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): It is my the same thing: there is no leadership. duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, The Minister of Canadian Heritage does not even have the title Infrastructure; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages that she had Environment; and the hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, before, and that is disappointing. When she was asked what the Persons with Disabilities. government was going to do for the Translation Bureau, she said that it was not her responsibility, but rather the responsibility of the ● (1605) Minister of Public Services and Procurement. Therefore, let these Mr. Robert-Falcon Ouellette (Winnipeg Centre, Lib.): Mr. ministers discuss it a bit and take care of it. We heard this minister’s Speaker, about two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to raise a initial response, which was unsatisfactory. question of privilege regarding translation and interpretation services in the House. It was not only about official languages, English and I congratulate all the members of the Standing Committee on French, which are obviously very important. My question of Official Languages, the Conservatives as much as the Liberals, privilege was about Canada's heritage languages, its indigenous because together we all said that it did not address our concerns and languages, which are very important to me, in particular Nehiyaw recommendations and that we were therefore going to call for a new Cree, Anishinaabemowin and Inuktitut. response. In this respect, I have a question for my colleague. In the Senate, such languages are interpreted, but not in the House. Currently, 400 positions have been cut from the Translation Bureau and there has been a commitment to rehire only about 20. Is What is the hon. member’s opinion regarding indigenous more investment needed in staff, particularly translators, interpreters, languages? Does he think they should have a place in the House? and terminologists, in order to restore the Translation Bureau to its Mr. Bernard Généreux: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague former glory? for his question. Mr. Bernard Généreux: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for He has taught me something that I did not know. Indeed, I did not his question. Indeed, we work very well together at the Standing know there was an interpretation service for indigenous languages in Committee on Official Languages. He is absolutely right on several the upper chamber. I find that to be excellent news in that the points in his question and preamble. interpreters who are available for the upper house could potentially make themselves available to the House of Commons. Today, we are left wondering who is responsible for official I do not see how there could be any objection to that. I do not languages. The Minister of Canadian Heritage removed the words imagine that it happens very often, but it must happen when “official languages” from her title. The minister took us for fools witnesses are called. when she answered questions put to her in the House about the I think that it would be very important, while respecting both appointment that had been made. She told us that there had not been official languages, to have the possibility of hearing witnesses from any communications between the Prime Minister's Office, her office the indigenous community. For me, personally, it would be very and Ms. Meilleur. It was a real mess. good news. Mr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I In my opinion, renewal is important. Staff will be re-hired—the thank my colleague from Montmagny—L’Islet—Kamouraska— relevant minister has promised to do it—at the Translation Bureau. Rivière-du-Loup for his excellent work alongside all my colleagues However, it is to be done properly. The purpose of rehiring is also to on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. make room for young students finishing their education, especially within the team of translators and interpreters in the House of It was one of the first things we studied on the Standing Commons and across government. It is important that there be room Committee on Official Languages. I remember very well because it for young people within this organization. 12920 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Royal Assent ● (1610) degree because the potential candidate for the position, Ms. Meilleur, [English] did not even know the meaning of the abbreviation QCGN, the Quebec Community Groups Network, a Quebec association of POINTS OF ORDER English-speaking residents. ALLEGED PREMATURE DISCLOSURE OF GOVERNMENT BILLS I think it can be said that this was quite unconducive to the respect Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, of official languages and I think that the people from the QCGN felt CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the proceedings, but on a aggrieved. Together with the Fédération des communautés franco- point of order, there have been four government bills that have phones et acadienne du Canada, the FCFA, they even asked to meet apparently been tabled. I see on different social media that there are the Prime Minister in person. As a consolation prize, they were able reporters actually citing areas of provisions from those proposed to meet with the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Unfortunately, that acts. Unfortunately, we still, as parliamentarians, do not have access was not enough. They left that meeting saying that it was the Prime to those. Minister they wanted to meet with.

Therefore, I would ask that you, Mr. Speaker, investigate, using They did not get the response they wanted, as they put pressure your office, to make sure that Parliament is respected in this place, on our committee and particularly on my NDP colleague from which includes ministers tabling their legislation and letting Drummond and on us, the Conservative members. They insisted that members of Parliament have a view of them before the media. we table a motion, which was done by my NDP colleague, to ensure The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): I will ask that the committee would do everything in its power to have the the table officers to look into it, and we will get back to the House if Prime Minister meet with those groups. necessary. We, the Conservative members, proposed an amendment to the Questions and comments, the hon. member for Mégantic— NDP motion and it was rejected. Before the controversy ended, the L'Érable. committee members from the government were also prepared to *** reject the motion, which was entirely inoffensive for the government members, as it simply repeated what had been said previously. [Translation] COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ROYAL ASSENT The House resumed consideration of the motion. ● (1615) Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to ask a question of my colleague [English] who, I might add, does outstanding work on the Standing Committee The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): Order, on Official Languages. Not only does he do outstanding work there, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication but he is also the chair of the Quebec caucus of the official has been received as follows: opposition. I know him very well, and I know that the issue of official languages is an everyday concern to him. I am convinced Rideau Hall that our chair sees it as his duty to share anything and everything he Ottawa hears at caucus with the Standing Committee on Official Languages. June 19, 2017 I would actually like to talk to him about the process to appoint the Mr. Speaker: next official languages commissioner. I think he has had a chance to address it briefly. I say “briefly” even though he talked about it at I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General of Canada, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 19th day length, because the saga dragged on in the House for quite some of June, 2017 at 7 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills of law. time. Yours sincerely, According to him, does all the procrastination in the process of Stephen Wallace appointing an official languages commissioner not send the wrong Secretary to the Governor General message to minority anglophones in Quebec and minority francophones in most other Canadian provinces? Making partisan, *** political appointments to such an important position in a country like ours may very well lead to a major crisis of confidence on the part of [Translation] Canadians in minority situations over the entire process that is COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE currently in place to protect Canada's two official languages. Mr. Bernard Généreux: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from OFFICIAL LANGUAGES Mégantic—L'Érable for asking me that question. The House resumed consideration of the motion. Indeed, submissions have been made and my NDP colleague will Mr. Paul Lefebvre (Sudbury, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to agree with us. In the appointment process that took place over the rise today to discuss the Standing Committee on Official Languages’ last six or seven weeks, a specific group felt aggrieved to some report on the Translation Bureau. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12921

Royal Assent Before I get into the substance of my speech, I would like to Thanks to the efforts we have all made, the committee has remind the House why this report was needed. Although I am very submitted a substantive report. I am very pleased that the pleased to hear my Conservative Party colleague heap praise on government has listened. It has put the recommendations in place, official languages, for the past 10 years this was not the case. In fact, which means that the future of the Translation Bureau is no longer the reason we began an in-depth study of the situation at the threatened. We will continue to reinvest in official languages, since Translation Bureau was because of the previous government’s cuts to official languages are very important for us, and we must ensure that the Translation Bureau and official languages. we are reinvesting in the quality of translation on Parliament Hill, for everyone's sake. It is very important. The committee tabled a unanimous report. I congratulate my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. However I must remind the House that it was because of deep, even ● (1620) harmful, cuts to the Translation Bureau that we had to urgently undertake this study. [English] The previous government had asked the team to create software called “Portage”. It was supposed to translate all documents for us. The Conservatives believed that with this tool, the Translation Bureau’s services could be completely eliminated. We were told that In a few words, under the Harper government, the Translation the Translation Bureau used to have about 1000 employees. Bureau had been decimated. It had been brought to the point where it However, under Mr. Harper’s reign, this number shrank to 400. had gone from 1,000 employees to fewer than 400 employees. It was Official languages were not at all a priority, and the two official not a priority at all. That was the way the Harper government was languages were not even respected in the House. going to balance the budget—on the back of official languages. That is why I am very happy that the committee came together to ensure During the exhaustive study we conducted together, it became that the government understood that reinvesting in official languages obvious that official languages had reached a very serious point in and the Translation Bureau was essential. That is what we did. We all the House because the Translation Bureau had been undermined. came together to make sure this reinvestment was a priority. Services were not respected. We, both in opposition and the party in power, met with people from the Translation Bureau. We listened to them and heard their suggestions because the Bureau’s survival was The government listened. The Minister of Public Services and in crisis. I would even say that it was seriously compromised. Procurement came before the committee and explained the reinvestments. She read the report and listened to the following That is why I was proud when the Minister of Public Services and recommendations: that we hire a new CEO, which the government Procurement rose in the House on this matter and came to the has done; that a new position of chief quality officer be created, Standing Committee on Official Languages to speak to us about it. which has been done; and that more than 50 students be hired per There was no question of continuing what had been done under the year over the next five years, which was essential to the longevity of previous Harper government, but rather of reinvesting in the the Translation Bureau, and to ensuring the quality of the services Translation Bureau. In view of that reinvestment, we followed the that we offer. Because of all the cutbacks, there had been no young committee's recommendations quite closely: we hired a new CEO; students brought in at all. Therefore, it was questionable where we we created a new chief quality officer; and we agreed to hire were going and whether we could ensure the proper training of these 50 students a year over the next five years. That was one of our young students. Canada is looked upon as one of the leaders in the priorities. In fact, as I mentioned, the survival of the Bureau was world with respect to translation. Other countries look to us to see threatened. what we are doing and how we are investing in official languages, and they were questioning our commitment due to the cutbacks over People around the world can see the quality of the work that the Harper years. I am glad to say that our government is committed Canada's Translation Bureau does for the federal government. to this. That was clear in its answer with respect to this report, and Students could not really continue their studies in translation. There because of that we have reinvested fully in the Translation Bureau. was no longer a place to get this essential training. As a result, things came to the point where young people were no longer taking this essential training. It was a priority for us to ensure that these young people were well trained and could continue the Translation Bureau's The Harper government invested a lot of money to cut positions. It important work. wanted to cut human resources and replace it with a computer program. A computer program would replace the quality of the great In addition, as I mentioned a little earlier, under the former men and women who work at the Translation Bureau. What that did government, the Portage tool was really aimed at eliminating the was reduce the credibility of what it was doing because it had a lot Bureau because a software program was now going to do everything. fewer human resources to complete the work. It was quite clear from Based on our studies and all the questions we asked our witnesses, the committee study that this computer program would not do the job we found that, because of the errors or mistakes the software made, it the government had intended it to do. It was clear that this was not a was not a translation tool, but rather a comprehension tool. What was translation program but more of a program to understand what quite clear, and this is very important, is that Portage was a needed to be translated. Therefore, it was not meant to be used comprehension tool and not a translation tool. publicly but to be used internally because of that. 12922 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Royal Assent I want to reiterate the importance of official languages to this The recent partisan appointment of Ms. Meilleur caused major government, as well as the investments we have undertaken in the problems for us. Sadly, the crisis continues on again this week. I Translation Bureau to re-energize it and make sure it will be asked the Minister of Heritage what she intended to do, given that maintained at the highest quality possible. However, it will take a the term of the acting commissioner of official languages was ending while. Why? It is because of the cutbacks under the Harper on Saturday, as she was very well aware. She told me that we would government. That is why we are investing heavily and bringing know when the time came. people back on board, because we listened. We listened to the concerns of the people on Parliament Hill. We ensured that we The problem is that it is now Monday and we have had no maintained the quality and the capacity of official languages via the commissioner since Saturday. Commissioners are not accountable to Translation Bureau. It makes our job on Parliament Hill so much the government; they are accountable to all parliamentarians in easier. That goes to the essence of what Canada is, a bilingual Parliament. country. Therefore, it is essential that we reinvest in the Translation Bureau to ensure the quality of what those men and women are My rights and my colleagues’ rights have therefore been violated, doing for us. That is why I am so proud that the government listened because we do not know whom to approach if we need to seek to the report and has reinvested in the Translation Bureau. I am assistance from an official languages commissioner. The report said proud of the work that we, the members of the committee, have done there was a lack of leadership and people did not know whom to together to create this great report to reinvest in official languages in approach. Unfortunately, the first recommendation has not been Canada. implemented. It was that the Translation Bureau be given responsibility so there would be a leader in the area of official ● (1625) languages. In fact, there is no chief quality officer, since the position [Translation] has yet to be filled. Mr. Bernard Généreux (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska —Rivière-du-Loup, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague ● (1630) to set the record straight. In committee, we heard all sorts of Mr. Paul Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, clearly official languages are a witnesses and experts about the Translation Bureau. We came to the priority for the government. I have full confidence in the Minister of conclusion that the Portage software was supposed to assist, not Canadian Heritage when it comes to official languages, which are translate. Everyone realized that rather quickly. part of her mandate. She is responsible for ensuring continuity and This tool was not created to replace interpreters. From the start, it making sure that everything gets back to normal thanks to our was agreed that the software was created to support them. It is a investments. That is not something that can happen overnight. There working tool. Since parliamentary language is highly specialized, have been significant investments in human resources and the this tool was not intended to replace interpreters or translators, but positions that should be filled shortly. I am satisfied that this will instead help them so they did not have to use Google Translate, for happen in the very near future. instance, which is what ordinary people use. It was shown to us Mr. Francis Drouin (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr. rather quickly that this could not happen. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Sudbury for his excellent speech. Does my colleague agree? He must appreciate that it was introduced to help translators and interpreters. We are demonstrating leadership. Let us recall that the former Mr. Paul Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I partly agree. I agree with him Conservative government refused to believe in the existence of that the Portage software is a comprehension tool. It features a bilingual judges. In fact, it told us that it was impossible to find a corpus of data. When it was created, it was intended to assist bilingual judge in Newfoundland and Labrador, but we found one. translators. In terms of the roadmap, budgets were frozen for over 50 years, When a government employee used Google Translate to translate which has had a harmful effect on communities, particularly a sentence or paragraph, it became public. This was very worrisome, francophone communities outside Quebec. We have committed to because potentially secret or very sensitive information could then holding consultations with all francophone communities outside become public. It quickly became apparent that what was needed Quebec. was a specific internal tool created for the government, by the government. With respect to the recommendations concerning the Translation However, we learned in committee that the Bureau had been Bureau, what recommendations were made and which ones have decimated over the years and that there was some fear about the use been adopted by our government? of this tool. There were concerns that the purpose was to replace Mr. Paul Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, several recommendations have professionals in the public service. been adopted and several of them have already been implemented. Mr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Sudbury for his speech and his work First of all, a CEO has already been hired. A chief quality officer on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Ordinarily, we will now have to be hired, but that will be up to senior management, are quite effective at protecting the Official Languages Act and obviously. Furthermore, hiring 50 students a year for the next five ensuring the vitality of official language communities everywhere in years is very important, since this measure is intended to ensure the Canada. sustainability and quality of the Bureau. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12923

Royal Assent These are just some of the recommendations that have been made congratulate and thank all the interpreters, translators and terminol- and have already been implemented in a timely fashion. Nothing like ogists, those experts who work at the Translation Bureau and who do this ever happened in 10 years under the Harper regime. Instead, an excellent job. They not only allow us to have texts in both official there were repeated cuts. languages, but also to have quality, accurate texts, as well as accurate interpretations that allow us to do rigorous work. This is extremely My colleague also mentioned the bilingual Supreme Court important. justices. This is obviously a priority for our government. We have already appointed bilingual justices. We even reinvested in the court We heard from witnesses who explained the importance of challenges program. translation and linguistic duality. Among others, I would like to There have been many advances in official languages in the quote Mr. Delisle, who said: 18 months since our government came to power, while absolutely nothing positive happened in the last 10 years under the Harper We all know that a lot of translation goes on in Canada. Translation is part of this country's DNA, even though many Canadians consider it to be a necessary evil of regime. Confederation. The same could be said of official bilingualism because translation Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I and bilingualism go hand in hand. Translation is not a by-product of bilingualism; it have the pleasure of listening to my colleague's remarks on the is a manifestation of bilingualism. massive new investments that the Liberals have made. He began by providing an exhaustive list of them. These massive investments I have here another important quote about the role of bilingualism total $25 billion, and it is our children and grandchildren who will and translation in Canada. Mr. Doucet stated: have to pay for them. My colleague seemed to be proud of that. The translator plays a very important role for unilingual people, bilingual people, and for the Canadian public as a whole. People can rest assured that the texts they I would like him to explain to me how our children are going to receive are of very high quality. pay for these massive investments. ● (1635) We cannot expect a translation that has been hastily thrown Mr. Paul Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has proven together to be a text for the ages that can be used in law, in something beyond reasonable doubt: investing in official languages committee, or as a law that will be interpreted by legal experts. was far from a priority for the former Harper government. Our Those texts need to be written by experts, qualified terminologists priority is to ensure the sustainability of Canada's official languages with a lot of expertise. by making major investments. There is a problem at the Translation Bureau in that regard, and it Is Canada a truly bilingual country, yes or no? Under the previous is not going away, contrary to what the Liberals are saying. It is true government, that was not the case. The official languages were not at that the Liberals have begun to reinvest in the Translation Bureau. all respected. That government kept making cuts. For us, official However, as they are reinvesting, they are continuing to go forward languages are a priority, and our investments prove it. with the planned cuts. Mr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today. The situation is partly good and partly bad, but mostly bad. In I thank my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska— 2011-12, the Translation Bureau had 600 translators, and now it has Rivière-du-Loup for talking about this report, because it is very fewer than 500. It is the same thing for translator-language advisers. important. It is one of the first reports we prepared at the Standing There were 347, but we lost about a hundred. Committee on Official Languages, one of the first ones we worked ● (1640) on together. We were hoping to reduce partisanship on the committee and to We are going to lose 150 more in the next few years and only a work together to ensure that the Official Languages Act is respected few dozen a year will be hired. If we lose 100 and hire 20, the net and that the vitality of all our fine official language communities is outcome is not positive; it is negative. The problem is that the ability maintained and improved across the country. I visited some of these of the Translation Bureau to do excellent work is continuing to communities in Alberta and British Columbia. On the weekend, I atrophy and be diminished. At one point, the morale of the troops at went to Acadia and met with stakeholders in education, health, and the Translation Bureau hit rock bottom. The union leaders came to arts and culture. see us and explained how badly things were going at the Translation Bureau. I say all of this to show that the francophonie and official language minority communities, including anglophone communities, like the I cannot seem to find the quote, but what came through loud and many wonderful anglophone towns in my riding, need our support clear was that there was a major problem at the Translation Bureau. so they can remain healthy. Our country is built on bilingualism, which in turn is supported by official language communities. We must therefore ensure that those communities are always at the heart The Translation Bureau is an institution whose expertise was of our considerations. recognized internationally. People from a number of countries in the world came here to Canada to learn about the quality of the When we did our study on the Translation Bureau, we asked Translation Bureau, to get a sense of its expertise, and to learn from ourselves what its role was. I would like to take a moment to how things were done here. 12924 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Royal Assent Unfortunately, over the past several years, all that expertise has ask what is happening, she tells us to ask the Minister of the haemorrhaged out of the bureau. It is no longer there. Now, we no Environment, who is responsible for Parks Canada. That is not longer have that expertise or the international reputation we once leadership. That is why this recommendation was made. had. We need to reinvest in order to regain that pride and base our country on bilingualism and, of course, on the two official languages. It is the same thing with the Translation Bureau. The Translation When we talk about bilingualism and official languages, we Bureau is not within the purview of Canadian Heritage. It is within always neglect the First Nations. I would like to digress for a the purview of Public Services and Procurement Canada. I am not moment. We must never forget that the First Nations are central to saying that the minister does not know official languages, but she our country. I think we must always remember that and uphold it. has so many things to take care of. The Minister of Public Services Even though we have an Official Languages Act, we must never and Procurement does not have time to deal with official languages. forget the First Nations. I know that a Liberal colleague said he It took several months before she had time to testify in committee. would like to be able to speak in the language of his nation. That She did not know what to do with the Translation Bureau file and so should be a right that is absolutely recognized here in the House of she sent the CEO to testify in committee. However, the CEO is not Commons. I would even say it is a shame that it cannot be done in the minister. She is not accountable to Parliament. We had been the House of Commons. We must respect the First Nations. They are asking the minister to testify in committee for a long time. She is the ones who built this country. I hope we will be able to have very nice and very responsible, but she has a lot on her plate. She speeches in the languages of our colleagues. In my party, there are does not have time to deal with official languages. As I said, the colleagues of aboriginal origin who speak their mother tongue. I Translation Bureau is about more than just translation. It plays an hope we will be able to hear them speak it one day, as I also hope to important part in our Canadian identity. hear their speeches simultaneously interpreted. That was a digression, but I felt it was important. It is really important for us. I am the official languages critic, but it is still important to me that aboriginal languages be recognized and We recommended that Canadian Heritage or the Treasury Board ultimately promoted. We have a lot of work to do in that regard. show some leadership and call out those who are not meeting their obligations. Unfortunately, that recommendation was not followed. I would like to come back to official languages. The first recommendation that everyone agreed on was: The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada mandate an existing federal authority to ensure that the Official Languages Act is properly implemented with regard to such aspects as the Translation Bureau. The situation is the same when it comes to hiring. However, before we talk about hiring, I would like to say some more about The committee came to that conclusion. It was not just me; it was leadership. We saw leadership today. Last week, the Minister of the entire committee. This is the part that everyone signed. It was not Canadian Heritage appeared before the committee. I asked her the supplementary report that I subsequently made—because I made whether she knew that the acting commissioner’s term was ending one on the record. This is the section that everyone signed, the four days later, on June 17, which was last Saturday. She replied that Liberals and the Conservatives. It says here that there is a leadership she knew it. I asked her when we would have news about the next problem when it comes to official languages. I have asked the process. I also asked her whether the acting commissioner’s term Minister of Canadian Heritage about it on several occasions. I asked would be renewed. She replied that we would get the information in her how it is that there are still problems at Parks Canada regarding due course. I said that it was in four days, which was very soon. I access in both official languages and the hiring of bilingual guides. wanted to know when we would get the information. She told me we would get the information in due course. I asked her not to forget The acting official languages commissioner visited us last week, that it was soon. While we wait, we are in a state of insecurity, and she told us that of the nine recommendations in her last report, because we do not know what is happening. She again told me we only two had been implemented by Parks Canada. Two recommen- would get the information in due course. dations out of nine is not even close. She brought it up again in her last report to indicate that this needs work. When I ask the minister questions about this, she tells me that I need to ask the Minister of Environment because a horizontal In my opinion, it is too late to be saying “in due course”. Since approach is used, and there is no “boss” when it comes to official last Saturday, we have had no commissioner of official languages. languages. Each person has their own leadership. Things do not Today, there is a breach of parliamentary privilege because members work like that. We need someone strong enough to really turn up the no longer know whom to turn to. The government does not want to heat whenever things are not moving along, someone that could say tell us whom we should refer to. The Minister of Canadian Heritage that we need to get to work at Parks Canada because the current does not want to tell us who is responsible for presenting reports— approach just does not work. who is accountable to parliamentarians when it comes to official languages. She does not want to tell us, and that is a violation of our ● (1645) privileges. It shows a lack of respect for the Official Languages Act It has gotten to the point where, when we tell the Minister of and for the official language minority communities throughout Canadian Heritage that things are not working at Parks Canada and Canada. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12925

Royal Assent I hope the minister will fix the problem immediately. It is too late member waged a battle for 15 years for there to finally be legislation to be saying “in due course”. That is what we mean by leadership. I on the bilingualism of Supreme Court judges. Unfortunately, the cited Parks Canada, but I could have cited immigration. The Liberals are now resorting to pretexts for voting down the bill, which committee heard from the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and will come before us next October. Citizenship last Wednesday. I asked him who in his team was the person responsible for immigration in Canada’s official language The Liberals used the excuse that it could be unconstitutional, minority communities. He said that he was. He is? For heaven's which is incorrect. All the major constitutional scholars who sake! Someone on the team, someone neutral, said he was taking on appeared before the committee over the past weeks and months a lot of responsibility. That makes no sense. That is an enormous said that while some requirements were essential, others were not. workload. This is extremely important, and, at present, Canada is not One may ask the question: is appointing a unilingual judge one of meeting its targets for immigration in official language minority the essential requirements? Is it part of the essential requirements for communities. This is a major problem. All of the communities in appointing a judge? No, it is not an essential requirement to appoint Canada need to be revitalized, and immigrants are not going to our a unilingual judge or a bilingual judge. However, it is necessary and official language minority communities, which are in decline. it is an absolutely essential skill for a Supreme Court justice. In fact, ● (1650) as I said earlier, legislation is drafted at the same time, legislation is equal in English and in French, and that is why I am calling on the There is a problem with the percentage of francophones Liberals to stop their petty games, to stop saying that it is everywhere in Canada, for example. unconstitutional and to vote in favour of this bill. When I asked the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship who was in charge of this file, he replied that he was. Once again, I thank all the members of the Standing Committee However, one recommendation in our report is that there be someone on Official Languages, since they produced a very good report. in charge. We asked that there be a person who can be identified, However, the recommendations need to be implemented. In this who can be asked what they are doing to be accountable to the respect, everyone on the committee, Conservatives, Liberals and I as committee, to improve what is a catastrophic situation at present. the New Democrat, did a fine job on this report. One person on the committee said that the minister was taking on a ● (1655) lot of responsibility and he would have to work hard, because there Ms. Linda Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Lib.): What a was a lot of work to be done at present in the immigration file. delight it is, Mr. Speaker, to watch this soap opera on official I would like to come back to the work done on the subject of the languages unfold. Honestly, it is always very interesting to hear my Translation Bureau. At present, a lot of things have been announced colleagues speak about official languages. when it comes to the Translation Bureau, but there are still more to As for the report on translation, I heard some very good come. For example, my colleague from Sudbury just now spoke of comments. In fact, one interpreter was delighted about all the work the decision to create the position of chief quality officer. That is all we had done. I am sure that the member recalls people who told us fine and dandy, but that position still needs to be filled. A CEO has that when we use Google Translate for translations, we lose been appointed, and that is a good first step. To my knowledge, ownership of our data. That was another reason why we had to however, the position of chief quality officer has not yet been filled. ensure that we had solid translation tools. I will not speak at length about the Portage tool, which is an Earlier, my colleague said that the committee members were automated translation tool. This software was released without much neutral, but he was not. I just learned that he was not neutral and that fanfare. The former CEO, who was present, said it was a tool for he was partisan. I am shocked to learn that. When the report on the translating emails and so that people could exchange short texts Translation Bureau was prepared, we were all in agreement. I am between themselves. That is false, as was said just now. When it surprised to learn that he prepared a supplementary report. comes to translating and interpreting, you need professionals. We are not professionals ourselves, we members. Public servants are not Why did you do that? language professionals. It takes professionals: terminologists, The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): I would interpreters, and translators. remind the members to address their questions through the Chair and We therefore cannot simply leave it in the hands of the average not to other members directly. person. People can use this software as a reading tool, and thus a The hon. member for Drummond. comprehension tool, but we must never forget that if a document is to be used in the long term, the services of translators will be Mr. François Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer required. We have excellent translators in the Translation Bureau. that question, because, in fact, we have done very good work, almost We have to use those services in order to get high quality documents from the outset, in a non-partisan manner, and I include myself in that will carry the same weight in French and English. that. We have also produced a very good report. I would like to return to another subject. I know that a Liberal However, it is always possible to add a supplementary touch to member spoke just now about bilingualism among Supreme Court any good report. I tabled a supplementary report to highlight not judges. If the Liberals are serious when it comes to these judges only the importance of the Translation Bureau, but also the need for being bilingual, they will vote in favour of a bill that was introduced leadership on official languages. On that point, I will reiterate the by Yvon Godin, the former member for Acadie—Bathurst. That examples I mentioned earlier, because they are important. 12926 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Royal Assent For example, when it comes to Parks Canada, how can it be that Townships, but did not know that there are anglophone communities only two of the nine recommendations were accepted, when this is there, because when he went, he said he would speak only in French Canada’s 150th anniversary? Entry to all of Canada’s parks is free of since he was in Quebec. He was told that there are anglophone charge, but we did not do everything in our power to ensure that communities in Quebec. services are offered in both official languages. That is why we added a supplementary report, because there is no leadership at present. He is supposed to be the Prime Minister of all Canadians, French- It is the same thing on the subject of the Translation Bureau. I speakers and English-speakers alike. It is totally mind-boggling. asked several times to have the Minister of Public Services and Procurement come before the committee to explain the situation. I lodged a complaint along with many citizens, because people However, she always sent us the CEO, who always wanted to make were shocked. The complaint was received and the government was cuts. They were really not moving in the right direction. That is the reprimanded. They were told to implement the recommendations. problem. Maybe the Liberals did not like that and decided to appoint a commissioner who would side with them. Unfortunately, it did not In addition, I recall that we had to request two answers from the work. Minister of Public Services and Procurement, because the first was not satisfactory. It seems that the minister does not have a lot of time for official languages and has a lot of other fish to fry. That is why The worst part of all this is that since Saturday, we no longer have we want responsibility to be assigned to an institution that has more a watchdog. This lack of leadership means that we can receive leadership when it comes to official languages. communications from ministers in just one official language, which Mr. Bernard Généreux (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska is unacceptable. —Rivière-du-Loup, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last week, I received a letter from the Minister of the Environment that was solely in Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): English. It was sent to me shortly after the minister appeared before Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Drummond the Standing Committee on Official Languages, where she once for his remarks and for the important work he is doing at the again patted herself on the back, saying that the Liberals were Standing Committee on Official Languages. wonderful, they were doing a good job, and they were happy to make sure that everything was going well when it comes to official I wonder if he can give us an explanation to the best of his languages. As she was saying those words, my office received an knowledge. For some time now, the Liberal government has been email from her written solely in English. making a mess of the official languages file. My colleague from Drummond said it is important not to leave francophone and As we celebrate the 150th anniversary of Canadian Confedera- anglophone minorities out in the cold, but it seems to me the Liberals tion, and our country is officially bilingual, a minister’s office is still dropped the ball. The appointment of a new official languages sending communications in English only. What does my colleague commissioner turned into a total fiasco. Their pick was too partisan think about that? for a Senate seat, but suddenly not too partisan to oversee official ● (1700) languages in this country. It was so ridiculous that even she realized Mr. François Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague it and decided to withdraw her candidacy. for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup for his question, because, in fact, it goes to the heart of the problem we have The interim commissioner's mandate ended last week. My at present when it comes to official languages. colleague from Drummond very kindly informed the minister of this fact, just in case she had not seen it coming. He made her an First, we need a minister responsible for official languages who offer and urged her not to forget because there were just four days to will demonstrate leadership, who believes in what he or she is doing, go. Saturday passed, midnight came and went, no commissioner. We and who does not leave official language minority communities by now have no official languages commissioner. Can my colleague the wayside. Second, we need an official languages watchdog, and from Drummond tell me if this is either negligence or incompetence that person is called official languages commissioner. on the Liberals' part? As I mentioned earlier, what we are dealing with here is the fact that the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Liberal government Mr. François Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague wanted to make a partisan appointment. We have all proven that. from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. Is it incompetence or ignorance? I Everyone saw that, which is why she withdrew her candidacy in the would say that it is a lack of leadership. That is a good answer, is it end. She could see that her strategy was not working. The Liberals not? I strongly believe that it is a lack of leadership. I do not wanted to make a partisan appointment, perhaps because too many understand what happened because everyone knew what was going Canadians are filing complaints against the Prime Minister. A on. Everyone knew that the interim commissioner's term was number of Ontarians filed complaints against the Prime Minister scheduled to end on June 17. It is not true that the minister did not because he went to Ontario and spoke only English, even though know. She was well aware of that fact. She found me quite tiresome there were people from francophone minority communities who last Wednesday when I reminded her not once, twice, or three times wanted to speak French and hear the answers in French. The Prime but four times that she should not forget that the interim Minister said that since they were in Ontario, he would speak only commissioner's term was ending on Saturday, June 17. I also asked English. Later, he travelled to the Sherbrooke area in the Eastern her what her plan was and what she intended to do. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12927

Royal Assent Unfortunately, we are now in a situation where the government not serious, because that would be renegotiated in five years. seems to have forgotten that the official languages commissioner is However, five years later, the government again decided to maintain accountable not only to the government but to all of Parliament. the status quo for another five years. When Madeleine Meilleur was appointed, the government forgot that it was supposed to consult the opposition leaders, namely, the Did the Conservative government have a vision? Yes, to weaken leaders of the NDP and the Conservative Party. It says so in the official language minority communities. Maintaining the status quo Official Languages Act. Subsection 49(1) stipulates that, before an for another five years meant another 12% decrease in funding. They official languages commissioner can be appointed, the government therefore provided 30% less funding than what was in the roadmap, must consult the opposition leaders. However, we learned in April an instrument to ensure the prosperity, vitality, and sustainability of that someone from the Department of Justice had called our communities. Ms. Meilleur. There has been a lack of leadership in all this. This is the kind of situation we went through for 10 years. ● (1705) However, we finally have a government that is interested in the issue and wants to make a difference for official language minority Mr. Darrell Samson (Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, Lib.): communities. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to take part in this very interesting debate. ● (1710) I would first like to thank the Conservative member who raised the matter. Honestly, I find that a little ironic. Perhaps my colleague Not only do we need to work on a new action plan, on a new simply wants us to talk more about the areas where the roadmap for official languages, but we also have to correct all the Conservatives had little success for the last 10 years. If that actually mistakes and ill intentions of the past 10 years. is his objective, I would take the opportunity to point out to him the consequences that the cuts have had on minority anglophones and I am very surprised that my colleague gave me an opportunity to francophones over the last 10 years. speak to this fundamental issue. First, I will talk about the court challenges program. The first decision of the Conservative government was to eliminate that The Conservatives decided to attack the Translation Bureau. They program to ensure that minorities could not challenge it and that it believed that it did not take an expert to work at the Translation could impose its will. That was not at all appreciated by the official Bureau—we can translate well enough; that should be all right; that language minority communities. should do it. They told all sorts of stories. For the House and for the country, there is no more important instrument than the Translation Then the Conservative government took issue with the long form Bureau. We must ensure that official documents are translated census. They said that it was complicated, too expensive, and of no perfectly. use, although the data could assist certain people, certain commu- nities, or certain provinces. It was a tool that supported minorities, which the government did not consider to be particularly important. As my colleague said earlier, countries from around the world Accordingly, that was set aside. come here to study the effectiveness of the Translation Bureau. What did the Conservatives do? They made cuts. They claimed that Then the government turned to the Translation Bureau, another expertise was not necessary here or for their party. Instead of place where it could undermine linguistic duality. It decided to make developing expertise, they made cuts—one cut, two cuts, 100 cuts. major cuts, claiming that official documents would have very little Not only will there be fewer people to do the work, but it was long-term value. Once again, official language minority commu- decided to give less work to the experts and to make more cuts. What nities found themselves in a mess. That did not matter, though, will we do? We will send documents to firms with less subject matter because the Conservative government did not care much about these expertise, and these firms will use terminology that we have never communities and said this would continue. heard of. We will almost need to hire a firm to understand the terminology used by the other firm. That is what it will take. They do I will go on because the cuts to the official language minority not believe that quality is essential. How can we be a centre of communities in the past 10 years were very significant. I am really excellence if we do not have excellent expertise? It is both pleased that my colleague raised the issue. astounding and discouraging. Now, let us talk about the roadmap. It was the action plan. I think the only solid plan we had was the Dion plan. It was a true action The Portage machine translation software was not about cuts. It plan. It included measures and data and provided for investments in was just a strategy to ensure that official language minority communities to ensure their success. However, what did the communities came out the losers once again. The previous Conservative government do? It held two rounds of negotiations. government decided to once again make these communities the The first one took place nine years ago. The Conservative losers by creating a software called Portage, thanks to which government decided not to increase funding and maintain the status translators would no longer be needed. Public servants could simply quo for four years, when there was was normally an increase of use the software application. They would enter the information they 2% or 3%. In the end, investments in official language minority wanted translated into the software and hope that it produced an communities were reduced by 12%. The government said that it was excellent translation. 12928 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Royal Assent Not one, not two, but hundreds of witnesses had to come and say The Translation Bureau will be improved because our government that this was not a translation tool but a comprehension tool. It is wants to ensure that the quality is going to be there, because it is shocking to see what a government that is not interested in and has mandatory. We certainly cannot simply have interpreters whose work no desire to help official language minority communities can do. If it is almost accurate. I know my colleague from Drummond could add is not a priority of that government, it gets ignored, and these to my list, because he was also there when the witnesses appeared. It communities often get ignored. was even difficult to hear how the previous Conservative ● (1715) government was able to slowly cause this destruction over 10 years and wreak all this havoc. The Conservatives do not place a lot of importance on expertise. I would like to draw a little analogy. A few weeks ago, the Pittsburgh Our government is going to invest $7.5 million a year to rebuild Penguins won the Stanley Cup. Congratulations Penguins, and the Translation Bureau and to ensure that we will have experts who congratulations to the best hockey player in the world, who is, of can do the job. Then, we did not just say that we would ask the CEO course, from Nova Scotia: Sidney Crosby. Even Don Cherry, who to ensure quality. We said that the CEO would be responsible for did not really like him because he is from eastern Canada, is now working with his team to build a vision, to hold consultations, and to starting to love him because he is the best, but I digress. Did the work with the communities to ensure that we will be the best not Penguins go out and get members of their families or fans to play on only in Canada, but perhaps around the world. their team so that they could win the Stanley Cup? No, they did not. They went and got experts, hockey players who could deliver the That person therefore has this extremely important task. However, goods. That is exactly what we have done for the Translation to take it a step further, our party decided to hire a chief officer, or a Bureau. The previous government did not seek out experts, but the director if you will, who will be responsible for quality. This clearly current government, the Liberal government did. Why? To make shows the government's commitment. It could have simply made the sure that we have the best translations, the best product. Translation changes without taking an extra step. My Conservative colleague is much like our Stanley Cup. must admit that even the Conservatives, in 10 years of so-called work, never imagined that someone could be responsible for Now, let us talk about how we are going to ensure that our plan for ensuring better quality. translation is followed. Once again, as a result of the recommenda- ● (1720) tions of witnesses and the great work of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, we are going to be able to find a way to do that. I am baffled. I really like my colleague who sits on the committee. His comments are always interesting and relevant. I want to thank I am beginning to lose my voice, but that is okay. Losing one's him one more time for giving me the opportunity to make the points voice is not a problem when telling great stories about our that had to be made. The government will do what it takes in the government and bad stories about— future to ensure the quality of translation in the House and in all the Some hon. members: Oh, oh! offices. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): Order. If Real success does not come from cuts, but rather from investment. hon. members were not screaming at each other, I am sure that the Our party wants to invest in Canadians, in the departments, and in hon. member would not be losing his voice, so please, I would like the communities. That is how we will build a structure that will not the member to continue his speech so that we can hear what he has to only ensure our country's economic development, but also say. demonstrate that the official languages are essential to our The hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook. government. Mr. Darrell Samson: Mr. Speaker, once again, they are trying to Mr. Bernard Généreux (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska weaken the minorities, but they did not succeed in the past and they —Rivière-du-Loup, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my collea- will not succeed in the future. gue's presentation, but he will have to answer a simple question. After all the money the government is in the process of investing in To ensure that expertise is passed on, this government has made a official languages, all the improvements and all the bells and recommendation that is extremely important. Fifty students will be whistles, how is it that his colleague, the environment minister, sent hired each year for five years; that is a total of 250 young people me a unilingual email in English just last week? who will become experts. Will they be chosen just from the University of Ottawa? No, absolutely not. Some of the 50 students Can you explain that to me? will come from the University of Ottawa, while others will come ● (1725) from the Université de Moncton, from Acadia, and from the The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): I think the Université de Montréal in Quebec. We will seek universities to help hon. member failed to address me and directed his comment to his us train the next generation and ensure we keep the expertise that is colleague. I would remind hon. members to direct their comments essential in this area. through the Chair, and not directly to their colleagues. One very important recommendation that I also like is from the Mr. Darrell Samson: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his President of the Treasury Board. If he were here today, I am sure that question. he would want to add something. The request is to make it mandatory for government departments to use the services of the The simplest answer I can give is that he probably opened the real, improved Translation Bureau. wrong file. The letter in French was in the other file. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12929

Royal Assent The important fact is that our government is taking the steps Obviously, my colleague is taking the matter lightly by saying necessary to ensure success. As a government, not only do we have a that I did not find the right drawer. This is not about drawers, but it is vision, but we are also introducing measures to promote progress. extremely important, because the Liberals claim to be an exemplary Mr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I government. Therefore, if that is the kind of example they set, we thank my colleague for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook for his have a serious problem, a huge problem. speech. I will ask my colleague again: after 150 years of history—which It is a pleasure for me to work with him, particularly on the recent we will be celebrating a week from now—how is it that even now issue of how rights holders are counted. This is an extremely this government is unable to send emails from its ministers’ offices important issue, to ensure that all the people who may be entitled to in both official languages? How can that be? instruction in French, everywhere in Canada, are able to obtain it. We have a big problem at present with the census. We worked very ● (1730) hard together. I hope we will succeed in addressing this issue before Mr. Darrell Samson: Mr. Speaker, the first thing that comes to the next census, because it is very important. mind is that because of all the cuts they made, there may not have Let us come back to the Translation Bureau. I understand that been someone available to translate it at the time. things have happened in the past. However, my hon. colleague has to understand that it is his party that is in government. We are taking action to fix— On this issue, for 2017-18, while my colleague’s party is in The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): Order. We government, it is predicted that 140 translator, interpreter, and have a point of order. terminologist positions will be eliminated by attrition. That is equivalent to 17% of the staff. Obviously, 50 students can be hired, Mr. Bernard Généreux: Mr. Speaker, obviously, my colleague is but that will not replace all of the expertise. The 15 translators hired playing semantics and making completely obsolete assertions. It is every year are not going to fill that void. That is why there must be incredible that he just said— investment. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): That is I think my hon. colleague sees very clearly that there is still work debate. The hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook. to be done. To accomplish that work, we need an official languages Mr. Darrell Samson: Mr. Speaker, the more serious reply is that I commissioner. do not know how it all happened, but I can say one thing. It was I would like my hon. colleague to answer this question: how can certainly not intentional, because our government is working on it be that the interim commissioner’s term was not renewed on ensuring linguistic duality. Saturday? What happened? Who forgot to call her, and who forgot to make the announcement? What is going on in this government? There is a big difference between intentional and unintentional. Intentional is making cuts to the court challenges program, the Mr. Darrell Samson: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his Translation Bureau and the long form census. Those are intentional. question. I am really happy that you raised the entire question of Let us look at what is different. The difference is that our rights holders, because I had forgotten it. I should have added that. communities have been suffering for 10 years. Lastly, the first thing When the census was eliminated, what they did was arrange it so that the government must do is correct mistakes in order to continue that the data that would respond to paragraph 23(1)(b) and building and ensuring the prosperity, vitality, and sustainability of subsection 23(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, our communities. which relate to counting students, was no longer collected. That is Mr. François Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give my another problem that we have to raise and for which we have to find hon. colleague one last chance, one last opportunity to answer the solutions. We are going to find them. question I asked earlier. Whether that was his intention or not, he Also, regarding hiring, we are in the process of restructuring. We failed to answer it. I want to know if not appointing a commissioner have a new CEO and we will shortly be hiring a new quality chief. of official languages and not renewing the interim commissioner's After that, there will be development, and we will have the staff and term was intentional or not. expertise needed to restore the bureau’s excellence. We are presently without an official languages commissioner. The The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): I would commissioner is not accountable to the government, but to remind members to direct their questions to the Chair. Parliament as a whole. Currently, the rights of all parliamentarians The member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière- are being violated, because they do not know who is performing this du-Loup. role. Mr. Bernard Généreux: Mr. Speaker, there are no drawers in my What happened? I would like to hear that from my colleague. telephone or my computer. Last week, I received an email from the minister in English only, with no attachment. There is no hidden Mr. Darrell Samson: Mr. Speaker, once again, my colleague sits drawer or a drawer underneath, on top or to the side. Emails are the on the Standing Committee of Official Languages. I always only things exchanged on the Hill. appreciate discussing the matter further with him. 12930 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Government Orders It is simple to me. If we have not announced a replacement, then The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): That is that means that the interim is still in place. It is not much more fine. We will resume debate. complicated than that. The minister explained it today. For those who listened carefully, she clearly said that there would be an The hon. member for North Island—Powell River announcement shortly. I am sure that we will have a highly effective commissioner. Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP): Mr. Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I Speaker, it is important for me to let the House know that I will not wish to acknowledge the passion with which my colleague from be nearly as exuberant as the previous speaker, and I apologize for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook gave his speech. He has certainly that. roused the House this afternoon. It is important for everybody also to know that I will be sharing However, I must say that passion does not necessarily lend my time with the member for Courtenay—Alberni on this very credibility to words. I obviously disagree with much of his speech. important issue. However, the speech given by my colleague from Montmagny— L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup was highly relevant, as Today, I will address Bill C-17, a bill that would amend the Yukon were the actions taken by my colleague from Beauport—Côte-de- Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act. As the title Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix in recent weeks. With respect suggests, this bill does not directly affect my beautiful riding of to official languages, our position is very clear. I also salute the work North Island—Powell River in B.C. Nonetheless, I am happy to rise of the member for Drummond. In my view, he was able to make his today to speak to these amendments for first nations and Yukoners points. whose voices were lost and opposition eerily ignored in the last For all these reasons, all these thanks and the good-natured Parliament. atmosphere, I seek unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion: Without affecting my riding directly, the matter at hand is a very important example of the behaviour lauded during the Harper years. That the House do now proceed to the Orders of the Day. This legacy reverberated in all ridings across Canada. We should not forget that this approach was alienating and downright contrary to ● (1735) the idea of a nation-to-nation relationship. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the As the Yukon NDP leader Liz Hanson said, in a public letter: motion? What we need, what is sorely missing, is a willingness to engage in an open and Some hon. members: Yea. honest manner. We need a relationship built on dialogue and respect, rather than on lawsuits and secret negotiations. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): Everyone agrees? Perfect. We are here today to repeal the most damaging clauses in Harper's Bill S-6. The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion? In 1993, after 20 years of discussions, the Council of Yukon First Some hon. members: Yea. Nations, the Government of Canada, and the Government of Yukon (Motion agreed to) reached an agreement concerning the management of land and resources in Yukon and the settlement of land claims. Chapter 12 of this agreement called for the establishment of federal development assessment legislation. This obligation was fulfilled in 2003 with the GOVERNMENT ORDERS Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act. [English] The five-year review of the Yukon Environmental and Socio- YUKON ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC economic Assessment Act was completed in March 2012. Due to a ASSESSMENT ACT disagreement over the recommendations, the review was never made The House resumed from April 10 consideration of the motion public. The amendments were developed through a secretive that Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and process, yet at the end of it came Bill S-6, which unilaterally Socio-economic Assessment Act and to make a consequential rewrote the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a Act. Bill S-6 imposed time limits on the review process. It committee, and of the amendment, and of the amendment to the implemented changes to allow the minister to give binding policy amendment. direction to the board overseeing the environmental and socio- economic assessment process. Bill S-6 provided a delegation of The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): The hon. authority that allows the minister to delegate any or all of a federal member for Perth—Wellington has about eight minutes left for minister's powers, duties, or functions to the Yukon government, and questions. Does he want to take them? it also changed the requirement for additional assessments to only Mr. John Nater: No, Mr. Speaker. where the project has been significantly changed. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12931

Government Orders New Democrats have been leading the fight against these harmful to address this ever-growing, gaping problem. We have seen Liberal provisions unilaterally imposed by the Harper Conservatives to and Conservative governments repeatedly make international dismantle the environmental and socio-economic assessment commitments and then fall very short of following through, and so process. This process was developed in Yukon, by Yukoners, for far the current government looks no different. Yukon, and the Harper government imposed these changes without consultation. Like many of Stephen Harper's agendas, this fell into New Democrats will be raising the continued refusal of the the hands of the courts. On October 14, 2015, the Champagne and government to fix the National Energy Board review process, as the Aishihik First Nations, the Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation, and Liberals committed to in the last election. It is important that all the Teslin Tlingit Council took these legislative changes to the energy projects be subject to a credible and thorough environmental Supreme Court of Yukon. Their case states that these changes are assessment that allows for public participation, respects indigenous inconsistent with their final land claim agreements. rights, and considers the impacts of value-added jobs. Grand Chief Ruth Massie stated: New Democrats are willing partners to work with the Liberal It is very unfortunate that Yukon First Nations are forced to bring this matter to government to roll back the damage from the Harper Conservatives, the courts. But after numerous overtures to the Harper Government resulting in no but New Democrats also know that we must do better with compromise or real effort to accommodate First Nations’ interests, Yukon First indigenous people in Canada, that merely rolling back these Nations are left with no choice but to defend our rights and established treaty processes. This Petition has broad based support, but we hope the case won’t have to damaging changes is one step, but it is not enough, and that is go the distance once a friendlier federal government assumes power in the coming where the Liberal government has continued to fall short. weeks. ● (1740) I look forward to seeing some positive movements in the future, and I will continue to do my work in this House to make sure that Some will see this dismantling of the Harper legislative agenda by happens. the courts as judicial activism, but I caution members to acknowl- edge the reason we are here. Bill S-6 represented a complete lack of ● (1745) co-operation. It was developed without adequate consultation with Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I thank the Yukon first nations and the residents of Yukon, and it was not member for her very eloquent defence of YESAA. I cannot fault supported by the majority of them. Moreover, many provisions in the anything she said on YESAA, so I will not ask a question but allow review were not addressed during the review the government her to wax more eloquent on the bill. unilaterally imposed on the system. I just want to say something for opposition members, just in case Forty years of discussion have resulted in a unique relationship they try to say that we are rolling back everything they did and between first nations, Yukon, and Canada. The steps of Bill S-6 were nothing was accomplished with that five years of review. There were an example of the realities. When one bullies one's way through, this 72 recommendations that were actually negotiated, the parties agreed does not lead to relationship building. to, and were implemented, either legislatively or some as policy In addition to the provisions in the bill, the Liberal government recommendations. That was achieved, but what the member spoke must reverse the Harper government's unilateral imposition of a new so eloquently about was the four major things that were thrown in at fiscal agreement on first nations in the Yukon. Not directly the last moment, on which Yukoners and first nations were not associated with any provisions within Bill C-17, two weeks before consulted. They were in contravention of the spirit and probably the the writ was dropped the Harper government unilaterally imposed a law of their treaty. new fiscal agreement on comprehensive land claim agreements, Ms. Rachel Blaney: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the including first nations in the Yukon. This new approach was comment and for his hard work on this file. produced and adopted behind closed doors with no meaningful consultation. It undermines these treaties and cannot be implemented One of the things we saw clearly here was a model of how we can without breaching these agreements. move forward in creating a true nation-to-nation relationship, and how harmful it is when areas and communities work together to It is the opposite of a nation-to-nation approach. In November create a solution that will work, where we can really track how 2015, the Land Claims Agreement Coalition, which includes first things are interconnected and how important it is that it be supported, nations in the Yukon, wrote the Minister of Indigenous and Northern but what we did see, unfortunately, was a total lack of consultation Affairs requesting the immediate suspension of the previous from the previous government, something that tore things apart but government's fiscal approach as it was incompatible with their could have been so much more positive. treaties. Too often we have seen this top-down approach failing indigenous communities across Canada. I am very happy we are doing this work in this House. I hope to see the next steps continue, and I do have to say that I hope the The Harper government systematically weakened environmental commitment for a nation-to-nation relationship that the current protection legislation with no public consultation and little government has made begins to flourish more. I would like to see parliamentary oversight. Since coming to power, the Liberal some glowing examples of that in the near future. government has done little to reverse these very important changes. Sadly, the Liberals are also still using Stephen Harper's inadequate Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Madam targets that will not allow us anywhere close to meeting our Speaker, we tried every way we could in debate to stop the erosion international commitments, and nothing in their plan does anything of the negotiated agreements for protections in Yukon. 12932 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Government Orders I also want to pay tribute to former member of Parliament Dennis people on a nation-to-nation basis and trying to move forward from Bevington, who is no longer in this House. He was the NDP member the wrongs and policies of the past. for Western Arctic. In the absence of the government member at the time, the member for Yukon, who was a Conservative, we did not The Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, have a spirited defence from someone from the north other than YESAA, was an opportunity for us to move forward. It implemented Dennis Bevington. I wanted to thank him for his work on it. the environmental assessment framework set out in the Yukon umbrella agreement. That agreement, which Yukoners worked so I want to pick up on some of the other examples my colleague hard to get, was a multi-faceted stakeholder agreement led by from North Island—Powell River used of environmental laws being indigenous people with government. In June 2015, the Harper dismantled and devastated by the Harper administration. I may have government passed Bill S-6, amending YESAA. This bill was misunderstood something she said, so I want to follow up on it. opposed by the NDP in Yukon, so we share those values. My colleague mentioned that she thought it was important for the National Energy Board review process to be reformed. We now have The opposition was based on four changes to YESAA that the two expert panels, one on the National Energy Board and one on Yukon first nations opposed. environmental assessment, both of which were commissioned by the current Liberal administration. Both of them recommend what I First, time limits were imposed on the review process. I cannot forcefully recommend, which is that the National Energy Board understand why we would put a time limit on looking at something should never again be entrusted with any review processes. The that is going to have an impact on people for generations to come, environmental assessment process does not belong before the for hundreds and hundreds of years. Where I live, the indigenous National Energy Board. people like to look at the economy and look at a forecast and a plan of what it is going to look like for the next 500 years, not the next I would like the member to clarify if she agrees that we should five years. It is very important to understand that this is a very in- never again see a project put before the National Energy Board for depth process, especially when development in the north has left an environmental review. environmental damage and a legacy of cleanups impacting the local Ms. Rachel Blaney: Madam Speaker, I remember knocking on people. the door of an elderly man who lives in Campbell River in my riding, overlooking the beautiful ocean and mountains. What he said had a Second, changes were implemented to allow the minister to give profound impact on me. binding policy direction to the board overseeing the environmental He told me he had been living in the same house for 60 years and and socio-economic assessment process. had seen, over 20 and 40 and 60 years, tremendous changes to the environment, and that these changes scared him. He has children, Third, the bill provided a delegation of authority that allows the grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. He said the environment we minister to delegate any or all of the federal minister's powers, live in has to be at the very foundation of every decision we make, duties, or functions to the Yukon government and change the because it is changing so quickly. requirement for additional assessments to only where the project has been significantly changed. I agree with my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands that we cannot ever underestimate the power of what is happening to our We led the fight against these changes being unilaterally imposed environment. I hope all of these processes are reviewed and renewed by the Harper regime and we have fought to reverse them since the in a new way that means we move forward toward providing a future passage of Bill S-6. On October 14, 2015, Champagne and Aishihik for our children and our grandchildren. We in the House can do First Nations, the Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation, and the nothing less. Teslin Tlingit Council took these legislative changes to the Supreme ● (1750) Court of Yukon. Their case says these changes are inconsistent with Hon. Amarjeet Sohi: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I their final land agreements. They have agreed to put the litigation on am tabling a supplementary response to Question No. 1025 and the hold to see if Parliament will pass this bill to roll back these changes. government response to Question No. 1027. We support this bill for this very reason. We want to get these Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): Madam Speaker, cases out of court and work on moving forward together. I want to thank the member for North Island—Powell River for her Unfortunately, these changes did exactly the opposite. They put speech on Bill C-17, an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and confrontation at the front of this. Socio-economic Assessment Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, and I want to thank the hon. member for Yukon for his hard work on this matter and for his leadership. Bill C-17 proposes to remove these four changes that were unilaterally imposed by the Harper government. We have been We are neighbours. As a British Columbian, I feel very closely leading the fight against these harmful provisions, which were aimed connected to Yukon. We share many important values around respect at dismantling the environmental and socio-economic assessment for the environment. Trying to find balance with the environment process in Yukon. This process was developed in Yukon, by and the economy is very important to both of us in our province and Yukoners, for Yukon, and the Harper government imposed these territory, as well as trying to find balance in working with indigenous changes without consultation with Yukon first nations. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12933

Government Orders We are willing partners in working with the Liberal government to have no choice but to defend our agreements. That means going back to court roll back the damage from the Harper Conservatives, but New because that's not what the provisions in our agreements say. Democrats know we must do more for indigenous peoples in Canada than merely roll back these damaging changes, and that is where the That is when she is referencing Bill S-6. I could read quotes all Liberal government has continued to fall short. day from leaders from the Yukon in support of rolling back these changes. We are still seeing indigenous people in court. In my riding, the Nuu-chah-nulth are still in court regarding their right to catch and sell fish. They won. In the Supreme Court of Canada, the case was We know that in this agreement, the Harper government thrown out twice in support of the Nuu-chah-nulth and their right to systematically weakened environmental protection legislation, with catch and sell fish, yet the government is still dragging it out. no public consultation and little parliamentary oversight. Since coming to power, the Liberal government has not done enough to ● (1755) systematically reverse these changes, but we are very happy to see The Huu-ay-aht won a case in the rights tribunal, and the this as a step forward. government has also now challenged that case, so we need to do more. We are calling on the present government to stop fighting I congratulate the member for Yukon again for moving this indigenous people in court. forward and for working hard so that we can do what we need to do. We need to ensure that laws changing the implementation of land In addition to the provisions in this bill, the Liberal government claim agreements can only be made with full and active consultation must reverse the Harper government's unilateral imposition of a new with and participation of first nation governments. We need to fiscal agreement on the first nations in Yukon. understand that YESAA is a made-in-Yukon environmental assess- In terms of some context or background, YESAA was established ment process, so any changes to it must only be done with broad in 2003 in fulfillment of an obligation in the Yukon Umbrella Final public consultation and participation. Agreement. In October 2007, the five-year review of YESAA was initiated, and it was completed in 2012. Due to a disagreement over The NDP has led the fight against these changes and to support the recommendations, the review was never made public. The YESAA because we understand they diminished the rights won by amendments were developed through a secretive process. Yukoners through the devolution process. Bill S-6 unilaterally rewrote the Yukon's environmental and socio- economic evaluation system. This system was the product of the Again, we support this bill. We are excited to see this opportunity Umbrella Final Agreement, which settled most of the first nations' for us to roll back these changes and for the people of Yukon in order land claims in the territory. YESAA is seen by most residents of the to move forward. territory as a made-in-Yukon solution to the unique environmental and social circumstances of the territory, while the changes proposed ● (1800) in Bill S-6 were seen as being imposed from the outside to satisfy southern resource development companies. Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the previous speaker's vigorous defence. As I know he The New Democrats opposed Bill S-6 because it was developed has more to say, I will not ask a question so he can finish his defence without adequate consultation with Yukon first nations and the of the bill. However, I did want to make a comment on timelines residents of the Yukon. It was not supported by the majority of them. from the previous debate. Yukon first nations took these changes to the Yukon Supreme Court. On October 14, 2015, Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, First, the timelines that were in this bill actually were not really the Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation, and the Teslin Tlingit necessary, in the sense that the vast majority, if not all, of the projects Council took these legislative changes to the Supreme Court of were meeting and exceeding those timelines anyway. Yukon. Their case states that these changes are inconsistent with the final land claim agreements. They have agreed to put the litigation Some who do not understand the process would suggest there are on hold, as I stated earlier, to see if Parliament will pass this bill and no timelines. There are timelines. They are the policy of the board. roll back these changes. They have been gazetted. It is just that those timelines are made in As we know, Bill C-17 proposes to remove the four changes that I Yukon. The Conservatives have spoken before about letting local discussed earlier. people make the decisions. The present system allows the local people, the policy of the board, to make these timelines that exist We support this bill. A few people have spoken about the today. situation, and I would like to mention some. In her testimony before the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs on Mr. Gord Johns: Madam Speaker, New Democrats are very February 25, 2016 , Grand Chief Ruth Massie, from the Council of happy that the bill would roll back changes, so we can continue to Yukon First Nations, stated: move forward with the agreements that will be set up in Yukon, the You're right. This fiscal policy is being imposed. We have not accepted it because long-term agreements that everyone worked very hard to accom- of the language in our agreement. How is it going to affect us if it goes forward? We plish. 12934 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Government Orders I think this is a first step in avoiding litigation in court with the beautiful history and scenery. It truly is a unique and wonderful indigenous peoples. I would like Liberals to take this approach with part of our country. the people in my riding, the Nuu-chah-nulth, the Huu-ay-aht, and other indigenous people in this country, go to the table, stop fighting I also want to note that as a British Columbian, when I went up indigenous people in court, and create a real nation-to-nation there I really did appreciate how the Yukon seemed to have a very dialogue that is based on a foundation of consultation, accommoda- good, collaborative process in terms of having solved many of its tion, and supporting UNDRIP. outstanding land claims issues, having a comprehensive process in Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, place. Contrast that to British Columbia, where we still have a lot of CPC): Madam Speaker, my colleague made a specific point. He work to do to get to the same place. asked why we would want timelines for projects, because, after all, the projects are important. That is an interesting question, but the answer is also fairly obvious, which is that any time decisions need It is interesting. I am hearing about four amendments, and I am to be made, there should be a fair process for evaluating the decision hearing a lot of process concerns. We did not talk about it quite long by looking at the evidence. If there is an infinite process with no enough. However, I am not really hearing good arguments about timeline to it, then, effectively, the decision will always be no. If those four elements. there is no mechanism for saying the adjudication has happened and it is now time to make a decision, effectively, that is an anti- First, I want to make a special note. This was legislation that was development decision and it will go on infinitely. I suspect that may enacted in the last Parliament. It has been in place for a couple of explain why some parties in the House are opposed to timelines, years now. I have not heard of any difficult stories coming out of the because they always want the decision to be no when it comes to Yukon in terms of the way the legislation has been established. There development. has been unhappiness with elements of it, but I have not heard of any challenges in terms of what it has done to move projects forward. What does the member think about my reasoning, that if we are going to have a fair process that involves a decision, sometimes yes, sometimes no, then we have to a time limit to that adjudication I have heard of a lot of challenges with the uncertainty of the time process and it cannot go on forever? frames and the fact that people do not know what the government is Mr. Gord Johns: Madam Speaker, we all want certainty when it going to do. It is important to note that the government actually comes to economic development. We want to find the balance to introduced this piece of legislation over a year ago. I think it was in move forward so that we can find ways to grow our economy, June 2016. If we look at how much of a priority it is for the protect the environment, and make sure there is a socio-economic government, the legislation was introduced well over a year ago and benefit to communities where development takes place. That does here we are, in the final stages of 2017, before we rise for the not mean we have to rush decisions, especially if they are decisions summer, and all of a sudden there is now some kind of urgency to it. that are not in the best interests of people locally. When it comes to economic development with indigenous people, they should not We did not have the first debate in the House on this legislation pressured to make a decision on land or territory that they have until April. Again, what the government is trying to do in the final governed or taken care of for thousands of years. They should not be days of Parliament is to get legislation through the House, and rushed or forced to make a decision when it might have an impact on through committee with hardly any witnesses and hardly any time. future generations. They have an important responsibility to There is not really the opportunity for the due diligence that we are generations from the past, the present, and the future. responsible for as parliamentarians. New Democrats have a different opinion than the Conservatives on how to work with indigenous people. We seek consent. Consent The government is trying to move it through quickly. In terms of is the foundation of economic development as we move forward and the time management and of its record for moving legislation if we have not achieved consent and indigenous people need more through Parliament, the government has a strong majority and has time, they should be able to have more time. We should not be moved fewer pieces of legislation forward than Conservatives did in pressuring or forcing local communities to move forward with a minority government. economic development on a timeline that is set by people from outside their communities, or without having conducted the I forgot to note at the start that I will be sharing my time with the consultation and accommodation that they so desire. member for Foothills. Although I would love to speak for 20 Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, minutes, he has a lot of good things that he would like to say as well. CPC): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to stand this evening to talk to Bill C-17, an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and to make a consequential We have a government that is trying to rush things through at the amendment to another act. end of Parliament, because it has actually had a bad time management, parliamentary management system in place. It is I want to note that I have only had the privilege once in my life of spending lots of time debating motions that could have been done going to the Yukon, and what an incredibly beautiful part of our through ministerial statements. It has been ineffective in terms of country. As we celebrate Canada's 150th, I encourage anyone who what the government says are priority pieces of legislation with has the opportunity to go up there, to paddle the rivers, or just enjoy important time frames. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12935

Government Orders The bill before us is going to do four things in terms of the concede that although one and two are perfectly appropriate, perhaps environmental assessment process. I am going to talk a little about we could have a discussion on three. each one. I know there was a discussion for five years around the review of ESA. There was an agreement on 72 elements, and there were four elements that perhaps there was not consensus on. I think The fourth one is the ability of the federal minister to delegate having consensus on 72 out of 76 elements is pretty darn good. Any powers and duties. That is what we are doing across the country. In municipal government would be pleased to have kind of consensus, the provinces, they are saying, “Get out of our business. You live a in terms of moving forward. long way away. Let us take over. Let us be responsible for making our own decisions in our own communities.” ● (1805)

If we had, in this House, agreement on 72 pieces of legislation out It is unfortunate that I had the one-minute warning, because I have of 76, we would have a pretty darn good record. The fact that lots more to say. On the process, we had full consensus on 72 out of perhaps there was not as extensive a discussion as some groups 76 recommendations. We have three that are very rational and might have wanted on these few elements, I do not think necessarily reasonable, and one on which perhaps there could have been means that there has not been an important process and good different decisions. I look forward to any questions. rationale. First, with respect to time limits on the review process, I heard my ● (1810) colleague from the NDP say time limits do not matter. Time limits do matter because companies and capital investments travel, and they Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have a go where they are wanted. If there is uncertainty, or if they know couple of comments to make before I ask my question. they are going to have to potentially wait 20 or 30 years before getting a yes or a no on moving a project forward, they are going to take their capital and spend it in other places. Therefore, having Something has happened since the last debate on this. certainty around time limits is an important and logical step. It has been done, and has been well received in most of the provinces in the On May 17, Motion No. 23 was passed unanimously in the rest of the country. Yukon legislature. The motion reads, “supports the efforts of the It is interesting that they are complaining about the time limits, but Government of Canada to restore confidence in Yukon’s environ- they say we are meeting those time limits anyway, so we do not need mental and socio-economic assessment process through amendments it in the legislation. However, in challenging projects, perhaps contained in Bill C-17...” The Yukon Conservative Party was also people might need a little push in terms of having a time limit. As party to that unanimous motion. Therefore, I am not sure why with many people, when they know a paper is due and they have a anyone in the House would want to go against the unanimous view time limit, it is easier for them to get the work done than when it is of Yukoners. open ended and they can turn in the paper whenever they want. On the concerns about the time limits, especially when they are The member said the timeline was a little rich. If members meeting them anyway, especially when it is consistent across the remember the day the chiefs were here, expecting this relatively country, I will use British Columbia again as an example. There is a routine bill to go through, the Conservatives, through mischief start process. They might say it is 18 months, but lots of times they motions, delayed it until we got to this time. put a halt to the process because there is something they need to deal with. I know that even a process that might have an 18-month time On recommendation 72, the member made a very good point, but frame from submission to when they are supposed to get an answer a few things were not agreed to at that time. The problem is that four can often take three or four years because there are certain elements major items were thrown in at the last moment and they were not that can trigger a halt in the process. Therefore, it is really not a good part of those five years of review. argument to suggest that time limits would be inappropriate in this piece of legislation. There is no shame in this, but the member probably did not know Second, on exemptions from reassessment when an authorization that timelines are in place now. As I mentioned previously this is renewed, unless there is significant change, there can be a very afternoon, it is the policy of the board and they have been gazetted, minor change in a project. To suggest that they have to go through a so there is no need to usurp those timelines by Ottawa when it is extensive, robust environmental assessment process is simply red already put in place locally in the system in place at the moment. tape, time consuming, and inefficient in terms of dollars. I would suggest a very appropriate insertion that says when there are minor ● (1815) changes they do not have to do a major review. It is not an area that is particularly troublesome, nor do I think in general people should be troubled by that. Mrs. Cathy McLeod: Madam Speaker, the member has said that timelines are in place locally and he does not have an issue with it. Third, regarding the ability for the federal minister to provide Why then is he concerned about having it in the actual legislation? binding policy direction, I agree we could have some debate on that. That just makes no sense. To enshrine it in legislation is perfectly Perhaps that is one area where I could argue on both sides. I will appropriate. 12936 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Government Orders Again, what I am hearing is a lot of argument against process. The downturn in oil prices, but we have been through that before. The essence of the bill is to remove four items. In fact, we should leave most significant impact has been the federal carbon tax, provincial three items in it because it would be better for Yukon. The arguments carbon tax, and axing the discovery of well tax credit. All of these I am hearing have not convinced me otherwise, that this is an things are having an impact, and we have seen the devastating effects argument about people being unhappy with the process, but not this has had on Alberta. I fear the next areas to start to feel this and about the implications of the legislation. the implications of these Liberal policies will be Yukon and some of Ms. Cheryl Hardcastle (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP): Madam these other northern territories. Speaker, I am a bit confused about the conviction we are hearing. With respect to what we have heard from the Conservatives so far, I am trying to understand how we are helping people if we are However, Bill C-17 would change four key areas. I mentioned that encouraging using a court system for a challenge. The status quo is we had near consensus on 72 out of 76 elements of YESAA. Now not healthy if we encourage someone to prove us wrong by going to we want to address time limits on the review process; in fact, court. Maybe the member can help us understand a bit more some of removing these timelines. My colleague in the New Democratic the objections to what is a healthy process in honouring the real Party, who I respect a great deal, talked a little about why it was intent through YESAA. important to remove these timelines. It is because we need to discuss these issues long term. I think he was saying that we were looking at Mrs. Cathy McLeod: Madam Speaker, I have already compli- 500 years down the road. mented the very important YESAA process in Yukon. It has done an admirable job and I know it took it a long time to get there. My point is simply that in the House we would never have consensus on 76 We are not going to attract investment from the energy sector. We recommendations. We have 72 of 76, and that is a very strong would not have large private-sector companies, maybe in partnership method forward, and it is doing excellent work. with the public sector, municipalities, provinces, and territories. As I indicated earlier, what we have here is one area where there They will not invest in a project if they do not see a clear goal or clear timeline to approval or denial. If they see there are no timelines might be legitimate concerns and three areas where the concern is in place or very limited timelines on the review process, they will not that it was in the legislation, but it is not actually what it is stated. take that chance. They will take their investment dollars and put Mr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC): Madam Speaker, it is a them in jurisdictions where they know they have a chance to pleasure to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-17. succeed, or at least a very clearly defined process on how to get to I was a member of the aboriginal and indigenous affairs that place. They will take their investments, as we see right now, to committee when we started to finish up the initial bill, which was the United States, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and other countries through the Senate, Bill S-6. I understand concerns were raised. where they will have a much better ability to get a return on their However, I have heard many times in the House today from the other investment or at least see their project be approved. However, by parties about this lack of consultation. eliminating those timelines, we will not be making our territory or jurisdiction attractive to capital investment, especially when it comes There was a great deal of consultation as we moved through this to the natural resource sector. process. Again, that was highlighted by my colleague's previous comments with the fact that of the 76 elements of the legislation, 72 (1820) had strong support and consent. There were four areas that needed to ● be discussed and were discussed. There was a great deal of consultation. Our committee even travelled to Yukon to meet face- When we were in government, looking at Bill S-6 and making to-face with government officials, industry, and representatives from these changes to YESSA, we wanted to empower Yukon, the indigenous communities. It was a process done in partnership with territories and the communities in these jurisdictions to make these the communities, which is important to note. decisions for themselves. That was a key element to this. We wanted I raised some concern with dismantling some of the Yukon to ensure Yukon and the communities in Yukon had a level playing Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, YESAA and field that was comparable to the rest of Canada. We wanted to ensure the precedent the Liberal government was setting. I am very the regulatory process and the review timelines were the same for concerned with the future economic development opportunities of Yukon as they were in Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario and Atlantic the Yukon and other territories if we take some key elements out of Canada. We wanted to ensure there were no obstacles or detriments YESAA, such as the moratorium on Arctic drilling and the tanker to attracting new capital investment to Yukon. ban off B.C.'s northern coast. Now there is a carbon tax. It seems that limits will be put on communities in Canada's north over and over. They rely heavily on natural resource development and the economic That is one of the reasons why Bill S-6 was so important. It was opportunities that brings to those communities. They will be further intended to make the northern regulatory regimes more consistent restricted, not only by taking some of these elements from YESAA, with other provinces. The key to that was to ensure Yukon would not but part of the bill would also add additional bureaucracy and red be at a competitive disadvantage compared to other jurisdictions. We tape to the approval process. wanted to ensure these reforms also gave northern communities greater control over their future. They would have more impact and In my home province of Alberta, more than $50 billion in capital more say on what resource development would happen and what investment have left the province. A big part of that was the economic growth opportunities would be available. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12937

Government Orders We wanted to ensure there was predictability with these projects. I want to make a small technical correction for the record to make We wanted to ensure there was certainty for proponents, regulators sure people understand something I did not say very well before. and governments, as well as aboriginal and indigenous communities. More than 76 items were discussed. Let us put them into part 1 and When they are making these decisions, we want to ensure they have part 2. In part 2, there were 72 agreed to and implemented, but there all the information available to them, including timelines, and were a few more the parties could not agree to, so they were left off predictability. The process of getting those to conclusion is also very the table. Over and above those, four serious things were put in at the important. last moment, without negotiation, and that was the problem. The removal of these timelines as part of the review process shows we were introducing unnecessary delays in the approval I will go back to time limits, and I hope I do not have to say this process. We see the impact that has with other infrastructure projects again. The member spoke very well about wanting to put power in across Canada when it comes to our energy sector. We want to the hands of Yukon. The system has now been set up that way. Very ensure Yukon has an opportunity for economic development. competitive timelines are there, but they are determined locally by the board by what makes sense. They are gazetted. They are in place. A good example of that is when I was at the PDAC conference in I hope if any more Conservative members plan to speak to this, they Toronto earlier this year. I had an opportunity to meet with will correct their speaking notes so I do not have to say it another stakeholders from the mining industry in the Northwest Territories, time. Yukon and Nunavut. They talked about the importance of the mining industry in those remote northern communities. We also did a mining study at the natural resources committee. Certainly, a very high The member mentioned mining. Let me quote: priority was not only their ability to do business and work with their indigenous communities, but also the importance of having that strict The Government of Yukon, self-governing Yukon First Nations, Council of timeline as part of the regulatory review process. Yukon First Nations and the Yukon Chamber of Mines look forward to seeing Bill C-17 passed, without change, as soon as possible. Your support for the passage of The stakeholders at the PDAC meeting told me that the carbon Bill C-17 assures us that the Government of Canada is genuinely committed to reset tax on its own would cost their two companies combined about $25 the relationship between Canada, Yukon and Yukon First Nations. million. These projects may not even go ahead because of that tax. How can we have new economic opportunities in these northern and remote communities that need it if private-sector companies do not The member talked about local support and about mining. There is see a friendly government at the federal level, which wants to local mining support. A unanimous decision was reached in the embrace these opportunities for the northern communities? Yukon legislature by all parties, including the conservative members. When stakeholders of two major projects in the tens of millions of ● (1830) dollars are now questioning their future, their ability to be successful, and may move out, other companies will follow. When we add the ban on Arctic drilling, the moratorium on tanker traffic off the coast Mr. John Barlow: Madam Speaker, I am not sure there was of northern B.C., a carbon tax, and now red tape and bureaucracy to actually a question there, but the member made some good the regulatory regime and review process, they simply will not go comments. I appreciate my hon. colleague's work on the same ahead. Rather, they will look for other areas that they feel are more question he asks over and over again. business-friendly and more friendly to economic and resource development. The key is that there was consultation. Our committee went to The key there is that Yukon was one of the most attractive Yukon. We met with industry, stakeholders, and indigenous territories and jurisdictions in Canada for mining companies and for communities, not only when it came to the initial 76 elements but mining projects and to invest in new opportunities. Yukon very also to the four the member referred to. I keep hearing that there was quickly fell down that chart not only in Canada, but around the no consultation, that these things were just added and were magically world because of the regulatory regime in place. Bill S-6 was an there. That is simply not the case. There was consultation. We had attempt to clean that up to ensure Yukon would not be at a the support of industry. competitive disadvantage. We wanted to ensure Yukon remained in that top five as not only a jurisdiction that was welcoming, had willing partners, and offered great opportunities, but also had a We are looking at the policies the Liberals are putting in place. It regulatory regime in place that allowed these things to happen. is about adding red tape and adding bureaucracy. I see them going down a road that will ensure that there is no more resource Therefore, Bill C-17 is a step backward with respect to resource development in Canada, especially in northern and remote commu- development and economic opportunity in Yukon. We have to be nities. We are seeing it in Alberta and the impact it has. extremely concerned about that. ● (1825) A report came out today that indicated that downtown Calgary Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the member now has a vacancy rate of 40%. That would not happen if the federal talked about supporting development in Yukon, and that is exactly government was a partner when it came to supporting economic what the bill would do. development, and that includes natural resources. 12938 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Government Orders Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Madam To start with, in terms of the particulars of the legislation, the bill Speaker, I parenthetically note the economic literature about the seeks to repeal a number of sections of the act that deal with time situation in Alberta, which is very much a concern to everyone in limits for project assessment, the ability of the federal minister to this place. We want people working. We want all parts of Canada delegate certain powers to the territorial minister, the ability of the engaged in a healthy economy. The current price of WTI crude oil is federal minister to set binding policy regulations, and an exemption 44.74¢. That is not due to government regulations but rather is due to to allow for project renewal if there is clearly no significant change a global oil supply glut. It has nothing to do with climate policies. to the project. These provisions of YESAA help to facilitate orderly, relatively efficient discussions, evaluations, and conclusions in terms I want to direct my colleague to something the member for Yukon of the assessment of projects. They reflect the belief of the previous just mentioned. I will quote specifically from the letter sent to the government that we should trust local governments, provincial Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs and signed by the governments, and territorial governments as much as possible to Premier of the Government of Yukon, Grand Chief Peter Johnston of make decisions that fall within, generally speaking, their own the Council of Yukon First Nations, and Mike Burke, president of competencies and areas of authority. the Yukon Chamber of Mines, in which they urge the House to pass the bill. I will read what they say. These are some of the existing provisions of the legislation the “Our governments and organizations confirm our support for the government is seeking to repeal. We oppose this legislation. We repeal of these amendments. It is our understanding that Bill C-17 think the provisions the government is seeking to repeal actually will be brought forward in the House for second reading on March make good logical sense, and I want to go a little bit into the reasons 22, 2017.” Here we are, still debating second reading now. They why. “look forward to seeing Bill C-17 passed, without change, as soon as possible.” These are the people who are doing industrial resource I will start with the issue of time limits. The bill would repeal development in the Yukon Chamber of Mines. sections that provide for legislated time limits for project assessment. There are a range of perspectives in this House on this question. We My colleague's concerns about this legislation and resource had a member of the NDP wonder why we would have time limits development are ill-founded. for project assessment. How does it even, from his perspective, make sense to have those time limits. That is one perspective in the House. Mr. John Barlow: Madam Speaker, I cannot let it go by when the We then had a member of the government say that maybe there member says that what is going on in Alberta has to do with low oil should be some degree of time limitation, but it should not be prices. That is certainly part of it, but to say that it is all of it is defined from the outset. It should be something that can be simply not the case. determined or shifted on a case-by-case basis. Alberta is my home. I have lived there for most of my life. My friends and neighbours have been impacted by what is going on. Fifty billion dollars in capital does not leave a province because of Our view, in this party, is that constructive deliberation requires oil priced at $45 a barrel. We went through oil at $20 a barrel and there to be clear opportunities for the evidence to be presented, then were able to pay off a deficit and the debt. coming out of that process, an opportunity for a determination to be made that reflects that evidence. I think that is intuitively reasonable. They are leaving Alberta right now because of federal and Thinking through and coming to a conclusion requires some degree provincial government regulations that have made it simply of certainty that at some point, that decision-making process will end unfriendly and impossible to do business in Alberta. That is what and there will be a conclusion, either yes or no. It is not about saying is happening in Alberta. that every project should go ahead. It is about saying that there Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, should be a process by which that decision is made. CPC): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate tonight on this piece of legislation. We are discussing Bill C-17, an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment For members who maybe are not convinced of this idea that we Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act. It raises should have some degree of time limits for energy projects in terms a variety of questions more broadly in our discussion of natural of the adjudication of them, I can maybe make an analogy to our use resource development. I will speak about the bill and the different of House time. This is something we have debated quite a bit in provisions in it as well as about some of the underlying questions terms of the Standing Orders. We provide for the fact that there are a and the relationship between those questions and broader issues of large number of bills we want to have discussed in this place, and we resource development. cannot spend the entire life of a Parliament debating the same bill, because it will make it harder to pass other bills. We have to make We have already had some discussion tonight about my province, difficult decisions about how we use the time in this House. Alberta, and some of the resource development questions there. A lot Hopefully, most of the time that happens through agreement among of the questions are the same in terms of how we view the kinds of House leaders. If we think about it, we debate substantial, very processes that need to be in place when it comes to economic difficult issues, and we allocate, either by agreement or by the development, where we think the decision-making power should be government imposing the allocation. It is quite short compared to the situated, and how we think these things should unfold. time windows that exist for many of these energy projects. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12939

Government Orders ● (1835) Along a similar line, this is about saying that there should be an assessment. There should be a process by which a decision is made, We spent two or three days discussing the government's but a decision should then be made. It does not make a lot of sense to euthanasia legislation at second reading. Recently we had the say that we have to repeat the whole assessment process if what we imposition of time allocation on the government's marijuana are actually looking at is a project renewal and there is no significant legislation to send it through to committee. After very little debate, change to the project. If there is not a substantial change to the we had the imposition of time allocation on a very expansive project, then why would there be a need to evaluate it again? That is transportation regulation bill. These are cases where we had debate fairly obvious. in the House of Commons limited to a number of days, even a number of hours. From the perspective of fairness in decision-making, a decision is made, and then we proceed with it once all the evidence is gathered Conservatives used time allocation occasionally when we were in and put together. government. The Liberals use time allocation. The NDP has voted on a number of occasions for time allocation. If members think ● (1840) energy projects should have no time limits, I would ask them to It is interesting, listening to the other debate in this House, that reconcile that contention with what seems to be the accepted view of there are very few politicians who are prepared to say, “We are just all major parties in this House that there needs to be some limitation against all energy projects.” However, we start to wonder, when we on debate that happens in this place. If members cannot go on to look at the accumulation of objections and excuses, if there is debate questions, broader legislative questions, infinitely, then how actually something else going on. What we hear more and more from does it make sense that we can have an infinite assessment process those in certain quarters politically is an unwillingness to admit to for energy projects? being, generally speaking, anti-development, but they object to Let us be clear, there are individuals, interests, and groups, some pipelines and to the transportation of energy resources. They want to of whom may not have a direct connection with the specific projects impose new taxes and tighter regulations on it. They want to avoid in place, that have a desire to filibuster energy projects. Any time having fixed benchmarks in place. They are concerned about defined there is a proposed project, they want to be able to insert themselves time limits. They want these assessment processes to be able to go in the process and drag that process out as long as possible to prevent on forever. that project from moving forward. As much as those who raise all of these objections may say they In the House of Commons, there are only 338 of us, and in this are pro-development, when we actually add up the pieces we can chamber, we are subject to, generally speaking, certain time limits. identify so many different ways in which these advocacy groups or There are other mechanisms of limiting debate. However, when we these political interests are effectively putting up barriers to look at project assessments that happen outside this place, there are development without admitting that all they are trying to do is put many different groups or individuals who could come forward and up barriers to development. However, when they are consistently make presentations. There is always the worry that for these projects opposing new requirements that do not really make sense outside of the assessment could be dragged out so long that effectively it would an anti-development framework, then we start to wonder why we be a filibuster. Effectively, there would be no opportunity to make an cannot just have an honest conversation about whether economic and adjudication on the basis of the information and the evidence, resource development is going to be beneficial for the regions that because the discussion would just keep going on and on. we are talking about. I am of the view that there are some projects that should go ahead. It is clear to me that there should not be repetition of assessment If people think that there are projects that should go ahead, then we when it is not needed, that project assessment should have a have to accept that there has to be some mechanism for setting time reasonable and clearly defined timeline. For those who say that limits, for having an identification of a process in advance that should not be the case, we have to ask the question, what really is the allows that determination to be made. motivation for that argument? Not, perhaps, for everyone, but if they are opposed to pipelines, they want new taxes for energy resources I would take the view that the existing provisions of this and they want to make the process more complicated, less legislation prescribe time limits, legislated time limits, clear time predictable, and longer, then they cannot really say at the end of it limits, so that everyone knows what the process is and everyone can that they are pro-development because it becomes clear that they are have confidence and certainty in that process. There is predictability not. from the outset, and people can submit the opinions they want to submit. We make sure through that process that everyone has an Economic development is so important for job creation in the opportunity to get their opinions on the record but also that a north and in western Canada, but all across the country we should decision will be made at the end of that process. I think having that recognize that there are spinoff economic benefits associated with clarity, that certainty, from the outset is a reasonable way to proceed economic development that benefit the entire country. There are jobs and to ensure that ultimately, the best decision is made. in every province and every region that relate directly or indirectly to energy development. Therefore, all members, regardless of what I am going to switch to discussing some of the other provisions of region of the country they come from, should understand that they this legislation. The existing act talks about the fact that there should have a direct stake as part of one whole Canadian family, but also, not be a repetition of the assessment process if an evaluation has given the direct tie-in to every region, they have a stake in already taken place and the project has not substantially changed. supporting policies that are responsive to economic development. 12940 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Government Orders One of the other provisions in this legislation that is repealed is provincial governments which may have different visions of how to powers around delegating authority. I am very proud of the fact that realize the broader policy direction that may be set out. under the previous Conservative government, we took the position that territories deserved to be able to increase their power and control It is, of course, important that provinces work together, that they over their own territory, that territorial governments elected by their have discussions on how to do things that are in our collective people, as the level of government that is closest to the people who interest. I think that voters in every province and every territory are are electing it, should be able to make more decisions over the going to push for those kinds of outcomes, those kinds of direction and future of what happens in those areas. approaches. However, when the federal government comes in and tries to dictate to provinces, that is where we get into problems. Just as we have a federation that is well served by strong provincial governments that can be more responsive in many cases Again, we took the position, with respect to the approach that the to what is happening in terms of local circumstances than the federal previous Conservative government took to the territories, in general, government, we have strong municipalities that can, in many cases, that strengthening the powers the territories had to make decisions be closer and more responsive to the immediate needs of their that reflected what the electorate in those territories were looking for, communities than other orders of government. We recognize that was a better way of proceeding, rather than having the power in the principle in southern Canada and we should apply it in the same hands of the federal government. sense in the north. The provisions that we had in place in YESAA gave the Minister That was our approach, and it was coming out of a broader of Indigenous and Northern Affairs the ability to delegate certain philosophical commitment to the principle of subsidiarity. The powers that were provided to them under the act to the territorial emphasis on subsidiarity has been a part of the Conservative minister. This legislation completely takes that power away, and that, tradition for as long as I can remember. Decisions that can be made of course, raises some questions. closer to the local level can likely harness the creativity and the connectedness to those issues of more people than if decisions are I will now proceed to my next point, which is the changes that the made far away, where they have people who are not actually directly legislation makes with respect to the ability to issue binding policy involved in the circumstances on the ground. When they have direction. decisions that are made by a smaller number of people that are applied across the board, even in cases where they may not apply, YESAA currently provides the ability for them to set policy they are less likely to have positive outcomes. direction to the board. ● (1845) Again, I think the board has the responsibility of making If we delegate that authority, if we have as much of that authority determinations based on the immediate evidence but it makes sense expressed at the local level, and responsibility as well, and the power that the broad policy would be set at the ministerial level. There is a to make decisions and to see the consequences of those decisions, distinction between assessment and policy. That, I think, respects the and then have local people respond in local or provincial or territorial proper democratic function of ministers, which is to exercise elections, we get a more responsive decision-making process, we get authority on behalf of the people, and of the board to make more responsive outcomes as that process unfolds. independent evidence-based decisions as well. We think that That is the emphasis on subsidiarity, that kind of philosophical properly reflects the balance that should exist in that case. framework that we brought to the discussion of this, and it is one that I think the Liberal government is less interested in. It is trying to Overall, it is evident, if we look at this legislation, there is a impose specific policy direction on provinces, even outside of what broader objection in many quarters of this House to development is supposed to be federal jurisdiction. I think it is very relevant to our projects. That is something that we are very concerned about and one discussion that here we see the government proceeding in that way, of the reasons, among others, why we oppose this legislation. with respect to the carbon tax. I think this is the first time we have ● (1850) ever seen a federal government say to the provinces, “You must impose a tax in an area of your jurisdiction and if you don't, we will Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I appreciate impose a province-specific tax on you and then basically the voters the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan being coherent in your province will be completely without recourse if they perhaps today, especially after we both flew all night to get here today. want to go in a different direction than the rest of the country is However, this time I do not agree with his speech. going.” One of the first Conservative speakers made a very good point. It is unheard that we have a federal government say, “We're going She said there were some process problems. That is the whole issue, to have a special tax for Saskatchewan that we're going to collect in from my perspective. If there was a law passed illegally, not in the Saskatchewan and not elsewhere.” This has very concerning spirit of the treaties, or against the treaties, it does not matter how implications from a federalism perspective. I am sure it would be good the various things are. There is no use even debating them. challenged legally. However, underlying all this is a lack of respect Some members are debating the points. If the process was not right for the particular competencies of provincial governments— the member would be the first to know that, after filibustering on a provincial governments that may have different priorities, which process point for 16 hours. I am sure if he was a Yukon chief he reflect the different priorities expressed by the voters in their areas, would be filibustering this for the same reason, the process. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12941

Government Orders The member has made some great points in favour of the bill. He review procedures that exist in northern Quebec were agreed to by said territorial governments closest to the people should be able to the provincial and federal governments and indigenous peoples. make more decisions. Not only the territorial government, all the Therefore, they provide clarity for that region. For any type of opposition parties just unanimously passed a motion to support this development in that region, everybody knows what the rules are and bill. Therefore, if we want them to be closer to the people, live up to what to abide by. I think the legislation before us tends to go in that what the member said. direction, unlike the previous legislation that the previous govern- ment tried to impose on indigenous peoples, which dictated and was That falls in with the philosophy of subsidiarity, to make the contrary to what was in the agreements and treaties in the Yukon. decision from the lowest down. The territorial legislature, all the chiefs and their governments have said to pass this as is. We should follow the member's dictates. The member talked about the jurisdictions we have in this country, Finally, we should not dictate to the provinces and territories. That federal and provincial in particular, and I think they need to be is what we are taking away, that dictation that happened in these addressed when we talk about environmental assessment review in elements with a lack of respect, as he talked about, for competition any part of this country. One of the things that the Supreme Court for the provinces and territories. has mentioned over and over in many decisions over the years was that, in spite of the fact that there are reserved jurisdictions for the That will be enough, because he has made such an eloquent, good federal government, and on the other hand the provincial govern- reason as to why the Conservatives should support the bill. I will ments, those jurisdictions are not absolute, and one of the reasons is leave it at that. that there are aboriginal rights in this country that we need to respect ● (1855) when exercising those jurisdictions. Mr. Garnett Genuis: Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for his intervention. I wish I had as much time today as I do when I am at PROC to fully develop these points. Maybe there would be less I would like the member's comments on that. confusion if I did, because the principle of subsidiarity is not that the federal government should pass legislation just because another level of government asks them to. The principle of subsidiarity is Mr. Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a delegating practical authority, and therefore the ensuing responsi- comment about the importance of indigenous jurisdiction, that it is bility for that decision, to orders of government that are closer to the not just about federal and provincial, that there is indigenous people. authority and other orders of governments. I do not disagree with that at all. Therefore, it would be a misunderstanding of subsidiarity to say we should pass this legislation because it happens to be the opinion of the Yukon legislature. Subsidiarity is about something much To come back to the points I made with respect to the legislation, deeper than that. It is about creating mechanisms to give full there needs to be a decision-making process that is fair, has clear responsibility for decision-making and for managing the conse- timelines established, is predictable from the outset, allows all of quences to orders of government that are closest to those directly those who are affected by the process and the project to have input, involved. That might, in certain instances, even be a process that is ultimately allows a decision that reflects the evidence to be made in resisted by those orders of government. However, the principle says the best interests of the communities, and makes the decision in a better decision-making outcomes are likely to result through that timely manner. Obviously, that decision has to include a multiplicity type of process. of different perspectives. Beyond that, if I understood him right, the member said he was less interested in engaging with the specific arguments about the points because he objected to the process by which previous changes Of course, the member will know that there are a range of were brought into YESAA. There is always discussion about different indigenous communities with different kinds of perspec- mechanisms for doing better consultation for legislation. I know tives on development projects. I can say, speaking from the there were many people critical of the government's own approach perspective of my province, that there are many indigenous people when it came to consultation around, I think it was Bill S-3, where in and communities who are very much in favour of energy fact there was a poor decision and the consultation did not even development. They believe in it and also benefit directly from it. include the litigants in the initial phase of that. Of course, there are others that take a different perspective, both in Alberta and elsewhere. However, on balance, I think that the The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Unfortu- framework established by the previous legislation was better in terms nately, I do have to allow for other questions. of setting out clear, predictable guidelines and processes. The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. ● (1900) Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik— while we are debating Bill C-17, which is entirely about rights of Eeyou, NDP): Madam Speaker, I come from a region where the people in the Yukon and maintaining a system of environmental environmental assessment and review procedures are pretty clear for reviews that had been negotiated with first nations, we want to put everybody. Not only that, but the environmental assessment and right something that was done wrong in the previous House. 12942 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Government Orders However, I do want to take the member up on a number of the ROYAL ASSENT comments he made in relation to pipelines and the people who oppose them. I would like my friend to contemplate the position I ● (1915) take, which is that the problem is not the pipelines but rather what is in them, as long as we are determined to see bitumen mixed with [English] diluent. Based on the best science we have in this country and in the U.S., the senior scientific academy, this is a substance that no one A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as knows how to clean up. Bitumen is only mixed with diluent for the follows: purpose of making it flow through pipelines, because it is a solid. It Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate gets a very low price internationally, because it is a solid. attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate

Accordingly the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Certainly, I support upgraders and even support getting upgraders chamber. and refineries being built to create jobs in Alberta and pipelines to take a product that Canadians can use so that we can shut down the And being returned: import of foreign oil to the east coast of Canada. The Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Excellency the Governor General in the Mr. Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, I think my friend is more Senate chamber, His Excellency was pleased to give, in Her direct and in many ways more honest about putting her perspective Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills: on the table than some who want to kind of dance around these questions. Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and other Acts and to provide for certain other measures—Chapter No. 9. Here is the thing about bitumen and energy resources in general. Bill C-18, An Act to amend the Rouge National Urban Park Act, the Parks We all use these products. Whether we like it or not, these are all Canada Agency Act and the Canada National Parks Act—Chapter No. 10. unavoidable parts of our lives. For those who are concerned about Bill S-233, An Act to amend the Customs Act and the Immigration and Refugee the potential risks of moving them and these sorts of things, then the Protection Act (presentation and reporting requirements)—Chapter No. 11. resulting policy conclusion should be trying to reduce the use of Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary these products. However, while we are still using them, while we Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and still use everything from plastics, to jet fuel, to all kinds of different the Income Tax Act—Chapter No. 12. products that come from the energy sector, then we have to extract Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal them and we have to move them. It is not realistic that we can do all Code—Chapter No. 13. of the downstream processing and product development at the very Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential place where they are developed. It would not be practical to have all amendments to another Act—Chapter No. 14. that labour right beside where these projects are developed. The alternative, then, is to not develop, to get resources from other countries, or to look for reasonable solutions to transportation. GOVERNMENT ORDERS

I think all the evidence suggests that pipelines are better than rail [English] from a safety perspective and from an environmental impact perspective, so it behooves us to be realistic and to look at what YUKON ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC the resources are that we use and therefore the necessary ASSESSMENT ACT mechanisms of transportation and development that are associated with them. If we do not look at that, then the alternative is simply The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-17, that we put ourselves at a massive economic disadvantage compared An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic to other countries that will do this development. Often they will do it Assessment Act and to make a consequential amendment to another in a less environmentally friendly and less human rights friendly way Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the compared to what we are doing here in Canada, and we will find amendment, and of the amendment to the amendment. ourselves at a disadvantage for no particular benefit. Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing That is why I am in favour of development. I am particularly in —Pembroke, a predominantly small community in a rural riding of favour of Canadian development because it is— eastern Ontario with a significant number of jobs that rely on the land, I chose to participate in today's debate as someone who can empathize with the people of Yukon on how bad federal policy ● (1905) impacts rural people. In addition to representing the people of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I am pleased to represent the The Speaker: Order, please. I believe there is a message from the people of northern Ontario as the Conservative Party critic for Senate. economic development for that region. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12943

Government Orders Like my riding in eastern Ontario and like Yukon, northern invisible cost. We cannot see the jobs not created by the investments Ontario shares many of the challenges faced by residents north of the not made because of the uncertainty the government seeks to create. 60th parallel. Bill C-17, an act to amend the Yukon Environmental If the time limits are too short for a thorough review to protect the and Socio-economic Assessment Act and to make a consequential environment, we should lengthen the times or add additional amendment to another act, would directly undermine the economic resources. well-being of people living in Yukon, but it should set off alarm bells for every Canadian about what kind of Liberals were elected in Ottawa. Canadians were pitched a story about a new warm and fuzzy, centrist Liberal Party. Instead, they got the old Liberal power brokers, trading votes and money for policies infused with the ● (1920) radical left-wing ideology of paternalist progressivism. It is like Frankenstein's monster. It is alive, and it has the brains of Dalton McGuinty bolted onto the body of a Chrétien-Martin money machine. The costs of review are recovered from the companies and they Bill C-17 is just the latest example of the horror story that is the will be happy to pay the costs. They just want some certainty about current government. It is a story that can be told in three chapters: what those costs will be and how long they have to pay for them. from cynical vote buying, to an arrogant Ottawa-knows-best attitude, That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise. The environment and ending in despair and economic destruction. Let us start at the gets protected and Canadians get economic certainty. very beginning, a very good place to start, with chapter 1, entitled, “power brokers, or how I learned to stop stressing and fight the Liberal vote-buying machine”. Bill C-17 comes straight out of the Liberals' campaign platform, Therefore, why is the government being so unreasonable? so it is important that we look at how it was developed. Unlike our Removing the time limits means reviews can be indefinitely delayed Conservative Party's grassroots approach to policy development, the to satisfy the government's radical left-wing agenda. Liberals outsourced to their pollsters, ad agencies, and special interest groups to cobble together “a chicken in every pot”. The pollsters, ad agencies, and focus groups wrote the headline promises the Liberals would promptly break, like Chrétien's promise to scrap the GST, or the current government's promise on electoral reform, or the promise of tiny deficits, or the promise of using deficits for That brings us to chapter two: paternalistic progressivism or how infrastructure, or the promise of eventually ending deficits. to shut up and do what Ottawa says. For the rest of the Liberal platform, they hit control-C to copy and paste lists of demands from various special interests who promise to deliver cash and votes. Those big promises test well but quickly get forgotten while the government gets to work delivering for its Bill C-17 is symbolic of the government's approach to resource friends. development and environmental protection. That approach is to dictate to the provinces and territories. The bill would remove the For the big promises the Liberals have not broken yet, the only ability of federal governments to transfer powers, duties, or functions reason is that, like legal weed, they made the promise having no clue to the Yukon government. It would be one thing if the Liberal of how they would make it happen. Therefore, they have to government just thought Ottawa knew best and just never used the commission consultations—which is Liberal code-speak for hire power under the current law to transfer any power to the Yukon their friends at taxpayer expense—to tell them how to do their job. government. However, to repeal that section, to make it so no future The promises in the platform they made to their lobbyist friends is government has the legal authority to transfer powers to the territory, the stuff that gets fast-tracked into legislation, which brings us back shows Ottawa knows best. It is more than just a little attitude; it is to Bill C-17. The government is rushing forward with a blunt part of a larger agenda. instrument to enact a copy-and-past election promise. Instead, it should have worked with all the parties to ensure any amendments protected everyone's interests. Let us take the section of the bill that would repeal time limits on The government clearly seeks to expand its powers and simply the review process. The government claims the time limits are order the provinces and territories to do what it says. Look at how it unnecessary because the review board already exceeds the current imposed a carbon tax on the provinces. It does not matter if different time limits in law. However, time limits provide certainty. That regions have different economies; Ottawa has ordered a carbon tax, certainty is how we balance the interests of the environment and the so a carbon tax it will be. Already Canadians living in rural and interests of the economy. The environmental review is not the remote communities like the Yukon pay higher costs for food and economic cost; it might even save the company from an expensive energy. Now the government wants these Canadians to pay more for future cleanup. What costs the economy is the uncertainty and its a regressive agenda. 12944 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Government Orders At the very same time it is increasing the cost of doing business in them with better access to lines of credit, loan guarantees, and other Canada with carbon taxes, it wants to repeal time limits on things to foster growth. environmental review. Its agenda is clear. It wants to phase out natural resource development by strangling the industry with higher costs and longer reviews. This is not about carbon emissions or protecting the environment. Nothing in Bill C-17 actually improves environmental protection. All it does is inject uncertainty into the Bill S-6, passed in 2015, amended the YESSA and granted further Yukon economy, which is the point: create enough uncertainty and autonomy to Yukon by giving the federal minister the power to investors will look elsewhere. Of course, the government hopes delegate federal powers to the Yukon government, or establishing those investor dollars will flow into one of its super-duper clusters timelines for environmental assessments so the process could be located in urban centres. completed in a timely manner, without forgetting the importance of environmental sustainability. That brings us to the final chapter of the Liberal horror story. If this chapter needs a title, it would be, “How the Liberals plan to spread their anti-development agenda across Canada”. Bill C-17 is like a Liberal test tube. It makes these changes in Yukon like an experiment to see how well they can strangle development. If they That is just some of what we did for Yukon, which was part of a are successful in creating economic uncertainty up north, they will larger strategy to responsibly develop Canada's natural resources. We replicate it across the country. In fact, one of the government's very can protect the environment and develop our natural resources. It is arguments for repeal of the time limits on environmental review is not even a question of picking between the two. However, the the claim they will be reviewed across Canada, so they might as well Liberals have decided they will pick. Bill C-17 shows they pick. do away with Yukon's. This is not a hidden agenda; it just an under- They picked more uncertainty. They picked less investment. They reported agenda. picked fewer jobs. Bill C-17 is just one part of that agenda. Eliminating the exploration tax credit in the recent budget is another part of that agenda. Removing time limits on environment review is another part. A punishing country-wide carbon tax is just part of the same Hopefully, when Canadians next go to the polls, they will pick a agenda. Higher taxes, fewer credits, more regulation, and longer different government. Hopefully, they will pick the one like they had reviews are all part of the same Liberal agenda to eliminate our before. Prior to the last federal election, with a Conservative natural resources industries. They will scoff and claim how much government in place, Canada was successfully working to secure a they support rural and remote Canada, but actions speak louder than position as the world's superpower in energy production. We were the PMO's scripted talking points. ensuring that Canada's precious natural resources were being developed in a way that respected the economy, by creating jobs With every action the government takes, it injects uncertainty into the economy. Even worse, with the government's love of picking and respecting the environment, without pitting one against the other. industrial winners and losers, we will soon see the hollowing out of many industries in rural and remote parts of Canada. This will force even more Canadians to migrate to the cities, leaving rural Canada even further depopulated. Across Canada, we will see more and more ghost towns. Unlike the current government, with its policy of burdening ● (1925) future generations with its high deficit policy and the spectre of huge tax increases to pay for out of control spending today, the This is truly a Liberal horror story, but it does not have to end this Conservatives believe a healthy environment and a job should be way. For one, those sitting on the government side could speak up in our legacy for our children's children to enjoy. It was in that context caucus and call on the government to reconsider. Perhaps there is a that we brought forth legislation to benefit northerners in the last compromise that can be found on setting time limits rather than Parliament. unilaterally repealing them. Did they even try to find one? Sadly, I doubt Canadians can rely on a common sense revolution within the Liberal back bench. The only chance will likely be in replacing this incompetent government with one that takes campaign promises seriously, one Bill C-17, in stark contrast to the Conservative policy of job that takes protecting the environment seriously, one that takes creation and a balanced budget, is symbolic of the government's growing our economy seriously. Fortunately for Canadians, we have approach to resource development and environmental protection. a Conservative Party with a better story to tell. The Liberal Party is committed to a policy of fostering a lack of public trust in any environmental process. It is called “delay, delay, For example, we created the Canadian Northern Economic delay until the project collapses”. It demonstrates to Canadians, and Development Agency in 2009, a new stand-alone agency that not to the world, that confusing environmental regulations and a weak only benefited the development of the entire Canadian north, but economy go hand in hand, which is the Liberal government's policy directly benefited local businesses and entrepreneurs by providing on the economy and the environment. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12945

Government Orders With Bill C-17, Yukon's economic development is in jeopardy. It This is an intervention where no intervention is necessary. Yukon is an attack on natural resource development. The bill would remove is already suffering from the federal 2016 budget measure to unfairly provisions that would limit the length of time for environmental tax family campgrounds. It is absolutely ironic when I hear the review. This action adds a barrier for investment, as companies are Liberals claim they will replace lost resource jobs when the now uncertain as to when a decision will be made. There will be an legislation we are discussing today goes into effect. They claim immediate increase in the regulatory burden on proponents. The that jobs can be replaced by developing tourism. Promote the mining industry will face the largest impact, and it is a major environment by promoting tourism. It sounds catchy. The reality is employer in Yukon. the Liberal Party brought in legislation that unfairly targets family- owned campgrounds in its 2016 budget. They reason that some slick Bill C-17 would further worsen the economic situation in the city accountants have found a way to create a tax loophole using north by putting thousands of Canadians out of work, while denying campgrounds. the opportunity of future Canadians to find employment in that region. The Liberal Party responds by attacking all campgrounds without The proposed legislation removes northern independence. It is a taking into consideration private, family-run campgrounds. That proven fact that government undermines economic opportunity, in attack is an insult to every husband and wife team working 18 hours this case Yukon, by adding unnecessary red tape to the environ- a day in a seasonal business. The Minister of Finance could care less mental review process. It threatens jobs in the private sector and about family campgrounds. He has a vacation property, a holiday investment. villa in the south of France. The Prime Minister uses the taxpayer ● (1930) dime to party in the Caribbean on a friend's private island in the Bahamas, someone who just happens to benefit from receiving The Liberal government is taking power away from the people of millions of dollars in taxpayer handouts from the federal govern- Yukon and not allowing them to make decisions that concern the ment. development of their communities. Part of the policy interference when it comes to natural resource development is to create uncertainty in the review process. Our Conservative government Campgrounds offer an opportunity for families to spend time worked hard to strengthen environmental protections and streamline together, create lifelong memories, and discover Canada's natural the regulatory process in order to promote northern development landscape. It is an activity dominated by the middle class as their while protecting the unique relationship between northerners and the form of rest, relaxation, and entertainment. Camping creates a sense land. of community that is unique to this form of travel accommodation. The removal of time limits and option for exempting renewals fits well with the ongoing narrative that Liberals use a false concern for In Yukon, of the 60 campgrounds that operate over 2,000 the environment to introduce unnecessary delays and uncertainty campsites, there is one federal campground and it has all of 39 sites. into our regulatory processes. This will impact on the economy, Unlike the private campgrounds that are serviced, all the sites at the similar in the manner that was used by Gerald Butts, the Prime federal park are unserviced. In addition to providing services like Minister's principal adviser, and how he directed the Toronto Liberal water and sewer hook-up and electrical plug-ins, private camp- Party to use the pretext of saving the environment to jack electricity grounds on average stay open one month longer. Taking away prices to unaffordably high rates in order to shut down tens of privately owned family campgrounds takes away local tourism in thousands of jobs in the manufacturing sector in Ontario. that industry and the jobs that go with it.

The Liberals' promise to repeal certain sections of previous ● (1935) Conservative government legislation is just another example of how green ideology over there trumps common sense. This change puts Yukon at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of Canada for Mr. Greg Fergus (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have to attracting private investment. Yukon has huge jobs potential that admit I am taken by the breathtaking scope of the speech by the hon. only comes with development. The Liberal government is intent on member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. The cogency of the adding stress to an already troubled industry through the addition of speech is only exceeded by its generosity. extra red tape, an unclear, unpredictable evaluation system, and the politicization of the final determination of projects. I would like to ask the member a very simple question in regard to the environment. She indicated that the environmental policies of the This legislation hurts workers in Yukon and it hurts the heavily government are based on junk science. When 98% to 99% of the taxed middle class across Canada. Not only do the Prime Minister world's environmental scientists feel that climate change has its and his closest Toronto advisers not understand that northern causes in human activity, does the member believe that, or does she development creates jobs, they prefer to create a patchwork of believe that is also junk science? regulatory regimes across the country with no regard for cross- Canada economic development. There are many other examples of the bad practice of only listening to Toronto-based advisers with Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak about the under-reported agendas on the environment, agendas that are based environment. The member's riding happens to be along the Ottawa on junk science. River. 12946 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Government Orders This is another example of how the federal government is trying to uncertainty, and this new carbon tax. When I visited Yukon, I saw so take over issues and authorities of local concern. We have our other much optimism there, so much potential for development. I am friend down there who has Motion No. 104. That is a bill to initially concerned that this bill would repeal major sections of Bill S-6, and study the Ottawa River. In concert with studying the Ottawa River, at the end of the day, it is all about competitiveness. the government is already trying to set up conservation authorities, taking the authority that the local municipalities have, creating I know the government is repealing a lot of things, but which part, wetlands where private property is, and furthermore driving people if repealed, does the member think would be the most damaging to out of the area, because they cannot develop, and they are forced to Yukon and its competitiveness? go into the city. Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Mr. Speaker, in all provinces and territories I do not take climate change as my religion. I believe in science. across Canada, the largest factor contributing to competitiveness— The member's “99% of scientists” figure is incorrect. or, rather, non-competitivenes—is the burgeoning carbon tax that is [Translation] being inflicted upon the provinces and territories. They are being told they have to add this tax. Any tax is going to drive away Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik— development. It is a cost on everything one does, everything one Eeyou, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Renfrew consumes across the country. —Nipissing—Pembroke for her speech, which I found rather surprising on a number of levels. I will not belabour all the We have had this experience in Ontario. It was called the global atrocities she uttered about a number of things. adjustment on electricity bills. This carbon tax has many of the same Among other things, she talked about the importance of the traits. It is hidden. There will not be a line item. In fact, the environment and the economy in different regions in the country. government does not even want the budget officer to tell Canadians Everyone knows that I come from a region where there are extremely how much it is going to cost. That is the single greatest detriment to strict environmental assessment and review processes, probably competitiveness across Canada, not just Yukon, and we are all among the strictest in Canada, in northern Quebec, under the James headed for it. Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. At the time, when we signed Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, the James Bay agreement, people were saying more or less the same the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke has put herself thing that the hon. member said this evening. forward for the first time today as the true voice of Yukoners, and I Every time the developers showed up for mining, forestry, or find that rather shocking. If one speaks for an area that one does not hydro-electricity projects they credited the process in place in James represent, it behooves every member here to do research and find out Bay for keeping northern Quebec's economy moving quite well even what the people of that region actually want. The people of that when Quebec's economy is doing poorly. It is important to know region want this bill to pass as soon as possible. that, especially when the hon. member's government tried to pass a bill to run counter to the agreements that are in place. I recommend that the hon. member give a phone call to the president of the Yukon Chamber of Mines, Mike Burke, who has I have a specific question for the hon. member on the time limit called for this legislation to pass as quickly as possible. If what the she wants imposed on assessments. previous government forced through the House, violating the rights of first nations, was so massively popular, then perhaps it would be We cannot impose a time limit on the constitutional rights that Ryan Leef sitting over there instead of the hon. member for Yukon. exist in this country, and especially the constitutional rights of the This bill was an affront to first nations' rights. indigenous people. ● (1940) It is not about promoting development. This is something that all [English] in this House should want to pass as quickly as possible, because the Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do is unanimous will of the Yukon legislature is to pass Bill C-17 as give the authority to the Yukon. We are not talking about James Bay quickly as possible. or anything else right now. We are talking about the Yukon, where ● (1945) the federal minister gave the authority to the territorial ministers to do what was necessary so that they could develop their resources. Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, the member for Yukon should be ashamed of himself. I look forward to the day when To stop them from developing their resources, with all the Ryan Leef is back here, sitting with the Conservatives in a majority environmental processes in place, without some element of certainty, government in 2019. The bill that Conservatives passed handed the leaves the process open for the “forever neverendum”. Nothing gets powers to Yukon; this bill takes them away. done. Investors leave. Mr. Peter Fragiskatos (London North Centre, Lib.): Mr. My goal tonight is to speak to the government's undoing of Speaker, I will read something, “Climate change is a fact. It is a everything that was promoting economic development in the Yukon threat. It is man-made. We have to do something about it, and that previously. something includes putting a price on carbon.” I agree with this Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member for sentiment. We just heard it. I agree with the sentiment, but the quote Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is a straight shooter, and I is not mine. It belongs to the leader of the Ontario PC Party, Patrick appreciate her comments. She talked about the increase in red tape, Brown. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12947

Government Orders I wonder if my colleague across the way agrees with his view. Is deficit spending, and the ballooning of our debt from that particular he peddling a conspiracy theory? Is it junk science? What is Mr. perspective. Brown up to? I wonder if she could enlighten the House. Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite better I also would like to comment a bit about the resource development check his phone and GPS. This is not the Ontario legislature. This is that happens in the north. In the party that I come from, we often talk the federal Parliament of Canada. about resource development. It is something we say all the time, but Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC): Mr. we do not necessarily put how it affects everyday life into more Speaker, it is my great privilege to rise today to speak to Bill concrete terms. Resource development in my riding is heavily based C-17, a bill that would change significant amounts of a bill that was in the primary industry sectors, such as agriculture, mining, forestry, passed in the previous parliament, Bill S-6. the oil fields, and those kinds of things. We talk about it, but then we still do not necessarily know what it means or how it impacts our It is with some reluctance that I stand up today. I am quite individual lives. concerned about the direction the current government is going. In particular, I am convinced that the government is certain that it does I would ask members to take a look around them. They are going not want resource development to happen in this country. However, to see wood. That comes from the logging industry in this country. I the Liberals are not willing to come out and directly say that. No, imagine that the pads in front of us are made from some sort of they are going to ensure resource development does not happen in plastic material. That comes from the oil patch. If we look around us, this country in much the same way as they did when they said that we are going to see some metal that came from mining. The copper they approved pipelines to the coast. They said, “We approved wiring that we see all around us comes from a copper mine. I know pipelines to the coast”, but they have no interest in those pipelines that in northern B.C. there is a large copper mine that I have driven actually getting built. by before. All of these kinds of things make our lives better. That is I am going to be sharing my time with the member for Lakeland. the real point.

I sit on the northern and aboriginal affairs committee. I represent I come from an automotive background. I worked as an 14 first nations or Métis communities in my riding in northern automotive mechanic. I definitely think that automobiles have made Alberta. The north is where I come from. I always say to the people our lives better. The fact that we can get from point A to point B in a from Thunder Bay that if it is not still light at 11:30, they are really relatively short time is something that even my grandparents, when not in the north yet. They have to go where there is pretty much 24 they were my age, would never have considered, or that we would be hours of sunlight to understand what the north is all about. able to drive 100 kilometres an hour for 12 hours at a time without any major breakdowns. However, it does give me some perspective for sure. Yukon is within sight, I like to say. I can nearly spit from my riding and hit ● (1950) Yukon, so it is within sight, so to speak, and I have some understanding of how things operate in the north. That we can get across this country in less than a day is still mind- Hon. Kevin Sorenson: Can you see Russia from where you are? boggling to my grandparents. All of the resource development, all of those things that start out in rural Canada, have an impact on our Mr. Arnold Viersen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that from the Yukon everyday lives. All of those things say nothing to the person who has they can spit, and they see Russia for sure. We are definitely having a that job at that mine, that sawmill, that oil installation, or that good time here tonight, Mr. Speaker. refinery. I know several people who are gold miners in Yukon. It is I meet often with first nations people in my riding, and one of the an adventure and a great thing for the people who gold-mine in the things they say is that they always look at everything for seven Yukon. I think there is even a TV show about it. However, it also generations. They often talk about their seven generations. They puts food on the table for their family. look down the road seven generations. They know whatever they are doing today will have an impact and they want to make sure that I have a quote from Chief Joachim Bonnetrouge, who is not from what they do today has beneficial impacts seven generations from Yukon but the Northwest Territories. He testified at the committee now. with respect to our suicide study. I think this quote is fitting for this discussion as well. He said: I would argue that the current government is definitely not taking that approach. Particularly when it comes to their deficit spending I was told a couple of weeks ago that the unemployment rate in our community is and the massive debt that they are taking on, the Liberals are not 54%. And you mentioned self-esteem. Boy, if the band or a band company could looking at how the seven generations that follow us in this place are create some jobs.... If you have a family and a father, and they could give him a job, going to have to deal with bringing the debt and the deficit under holy man...that would make a big difference in anybody's life. control. I would say that we need to look to our first nations communities for that example of considering the seven generations. That is what we are talking about today: jobs for people in the That is very important for them, and it is something that we can north of Canada, jobs for people to provide their family with an embrace in this place. In everything we do, we can consider how it is income, food, clothing, and shelter. That is what the economy is all going to affect the next seven generations. I very much reprimand about, providing people with the ability to provide their family with the current government for its use of taxpayer dollars, its use of food, clothing, and shelter. 12948 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Government Orders The other thing that comes with the economy is wealth creation. some confusion as to what is going to happen with those particular We hear more and more all the time at the northern and aboriginal groups. affairs committee how we are not managing wealth, we are managing poverty. The first nations communities across this country That said, the underlying premise of my entire speech is that we are saying that they are living in third world conditions, and I agree need the development of the north to ensure that the people who live with that to some degree. However, the trouble is we are not in the north have their lives made better. In that process, they can allowing wealth creation to happen in those places. We have to make the lives of all Canadians, and people around the world, better unshackle these communities and allow them to pursue wealth through the products that are produced right here in Canada. creation. To do that we need to get investment to come in. That goes Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik— to the very heart of this bill. With this bill, and the time frames being Eeyou, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment from my extended, or with no end dates being put on them, we are not colleague on the Standing Committee for Aboriginal Affairs and bringing it in. People who have a billion dollars to invest anywhere Northern Development. in the world will look around the world and say that Yukon is unstable, and that they are not quite sure how long they will have to I listened carefully to his speech. Some parts are good; some parts work there before the project that they think will make them money are troubling. As members know, I come from a region where the will actually get going, so they would rather go to a jurisdiction rules are pretty tight and pretty severe in terms of environmental where they know and understand the timelines. assessment and review of projects, whether they be mining projects What we really need to do is allow the investments to come in to or forestry projects or hydro development projects. the north to provide the people who live there the jobs they need to provide for their family. In the process, they will produce a product Where there are rules that are strict, I believe there is certainty, out there that the rest of the world can use to make their lives better. because every player will know by which rules they need to play in The stuff that we develop in Canada we export around the world. any given territory. This is what this bill is all about. This is why That makes the lives of people all around the world better. Therefore, indigenous people in particular who hold constitutional rights in the we need to ensure that the investments come to northern Canada, and region need this as well. They have agreed to this bill for that. that development happens in northern Canada so that the people who live in those communities can make the quality of their life better, I want to ask the same question I asked the member's colleague and that with those products that are produced in those communities previously. There is talk about imposing a time limit on environment and shipped around the world, Canadians will make every person's assessments, something which I wholeheartedly disagree with life in the entire world better. because constitutional rights of indigenous peoples do not have time limits. They exist now; they existed yesterday; they will With that, I will wrap it up. This bill is wrong-headed because it continue to exist tomorrow. takes out a number of things that had brought stability to Yukon. We will see a withdrawal of investment in that area, and it says nothing Time limits cannot be imposed on constitutional rights. Whatever to what will happen to the current projects that will be sitting in time it will take to consult with indigenous peoples is a constitutional limbo after this bill is passed. duty that we need to undertake every time. I look forward to the questions. Mr. Arnold Viersen: Mr. Speaker, he talks about how the rules ● (1955) are tight in the James Bay agreement. There comes a significant level Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the record I of certainty with the tight rules. I think we both agree on the fact that want to clarify the member's very last comment. There will not be the certainty is what allows groups to move in and understand what any projects left in limbo. the process is, that they have to go through the process, and at the end of they will have a yes or no. They will get to proceed, or the On the day Bill C-17 receives Royal Assent, section 49.1, of the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act is repealed. Projects that have project does not proceed. been submitted to a decision body, prior to that day, for an exemption from assessment and have received, before that day, a positive decision (or as the quote One of the defences of the bill that was tabled by the government above states “were greenlit without additional review”) continue to enjoy the benefits is that the current projects are doing their assessments in less than a of that decision and do not have to be reassessed. third of the time that is allocated by the certainty of the long date, the Therefore, the certainty this bill will put in place and that it has 18-month period. What that has allowed is that at 18 months, there is brought about the court case, and the uncertainty related to a going to be a yes or a no. That provides certainty. potential abrogation of the treaty, and the letter of the law, if not the spirit of the law, I think will allay the member's fears in his last The member said that in the James Bay agreement there is comment. certainty. This, as well, is certainty. I think we are undermining that certainty by just leaving it open-ended on the extended date. Mr. Arnold Viersen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for allying my fears on that. ● (2000) The member said there are groups that have had a decision made, Mrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am and those decisions will not be overturned. As far as I understand, speaking against the proposed amendments for Bill C-17, an act to there is a number of groups that are either in the process of having it amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment reviewed or have submitted but are not in the process yet. There is Act. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12949

Government Orders The bill seeks to reverse progress in Yukon's economic and natural about whether it is a template for the basis of Liberal policy going resources development. For years, northerners have built and relied forward. on their increasingly thriving economy, unlocking the opportunity and prosperity of their natural resources. From mining, to hunting, to tourism, Canada's northern territories are an important and strategic asset to Canada's future. I had the amazing opportunity to visit Yukon last summer. Of course, the landscapes are breathtaking, the resources vast, and the The YESAA became law in 2003. The goal of that original bill people are friendly. However, what stood out to me was an almost was to develop a single development assessment process for projects universal and distinct, independent, pioneering, adventurous spirit, on all federal, territorial, and first nations land in Yukon. Part of the and a deep appreciation and abiding love for their land. It is the same legislation included a mandatory review after five years of becoming can-do streak of Canadian miners. law. The review was a joint initiative of the Council of Yukon First Nations and the Governments of Canada and Yukon, and was completed successfully in March 2012. These changes were formally introduced in Bill S-6 in 2014, which intended to make northern The most important sector of Yukon's economy is mining. The regulatory regimes more consistent with those in the south in order territory is extremely rich in mineral potential. The main resources to attract investment and expand economic opportunities now and mined are gold, which in 2011 accounted for 70% of metal mining, for future generations. copper, zinc, lead, tungsten, silver, and coal. The bill, which was called the Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act, amended both YESAA and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, and was part of a broader Yukon has some of the largest iron ore and zinc deposits in the suite of reforms intended to give northerners greater control over world. There are over 80 mineral resource deposits there with their resources and to help promote resource development and enormous economic potential. Last year, more than $300 million was economic growth. spent on exploration and mineral production soared above $400 million, from just $46 million in 2006, according to the Yukon The changes to Nunavut's regulatory regime have not been Chamber of Mines. controversial. Bill S-6 reflected many of the jointly agreed upon findings for the five-year review of YESAA, but also reflected changes to regulatory regimes in the rest of Canada, as well as input from Yukon's government. The mining sector in Yukon is very successful, but it has Bill C-17 proposes to repeal many of the changes enabled by Bill challenges. Difficult access and rugged terrain of the territory make S-6. These include removing time limits on the steps in the review it difficult to access many of these deposits. That is where the federal process, removing an exemption for projects that have already been government can assist, by investing in infrastructure and making it approved through the assessment process, removing the ability for easier for developers to access resources across the territory, given the federal minister to provide binding policy direction to the board, all of the challenges. and removing the ability to delegate the federal minister's powers, duties, or functions under the act to the territorial government. At its core, the bill would make natural resources development Bill C-17 would not make any of this easier. In fact, it would much more difficult in Yukon for project proponents and investors. It make mining more difficult for many families who have been in the would slow down the review process by increasing the number of industry for generations. projects that need to be reviewed and by removing timelines for approval. It would also damage industry and investment confidence in the regulatory regime. It is a step backward for the self- ● (2005) determination of Yukoners, because it takes away northern control over northern resources and puts it in the hands of federal ministers and of MPs from large, southern urban centres. Northerners know their needs and capabilities best and they should be equipped and Last fall, the Standing Committee on Natural Resources heard empowered to make decisions for themselves. from several witnesses during a study on the future of the mining However, Canadians should not be surprised. The Liberals have sector in Canada. Mike McDougall is the president of the Klondike shown their cards, sometimes on purpose, sometimes accidentally, Placer Miners' Association. He came to Ottawa representing the 160 that prove they are fundamentally anti-Canadian energy and anti- family-owned and operated placer mines in Yukon. I would like to Canadian resource development. The bill is another part of their plan share his thoughts on Bill C-17. He said: to dismantle Canada's successful natural resources development. Bill C-17 brings more uncertainty to the resource development YESAA defines much of how the placer industry's operations are assessed for review process that will undermine economic opportunities for all impacts and how these impacts are mitigated. Placer mining is the single-largest Yukoners. It also introduces new uncertainty for the rest of Canada client of the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board... 12950 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Government Orders Issues such as costly and time-consuming reassessments for unchanged projects, Whether it is higher taxes, more red tape, or ongoing uncertainty, inconsistency and lack of accountability between designated offices, and a lack of the Liberals make it clear that developing Canada's natural resources clear timelines all leave our industry with uncertainty. The amendments were meant to bring YESAA into line with the other Canadian jurisdictions, provide certainty for will be more difficult than ever before, everywhere. At a time when investment, and allow the Yukon to be competitive. As the government is now technology, research and development, and innovation are at an all- prepared to amend this legislation once again, we would like to see these issues time high, the Liberals are attacking the very people who are addressed in the amended bill. ensuring the long-term and sustainable development of natural The federal government has heard the concerns of the first nations. As the resources in Canada. number one client and end-user of the YESAA process, the KPMA expects that government will engage with us prior to finalizing any amendments. The bill would not help Yukon, a territory rich in natural beauty, Mr. McDougall's testimony highlights how uncertainty and natural resources, and irrepressible human capital. The Liberals are ongoing regulatory changes and challenges will hinder their ability limiting opportunities for future generations and are just adding to fully engage in northern development, which should be a serious challenges to the north. The Liberals need to do what they have concern to the Liberals, since mining is the most important part of pledged all along. They need to listen. Yukon's economy. Putting up more roadblocks and adding more red tape is not the answer. Bill C-17 adds a barrier for investment as That is why I oppose these amendments. companies would be uncertain as to when a decision will be made. Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations and I believe if you Furthermore, the bill would immediately increase the regulatory seek it you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I burden and major costs for proponents, which would impact many move: working Yukoners and their families, since mining is a major employer in the territory. The bill would worsen the economic That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, the sub- situation in the north by putting thousands out of work. amendment and the amendment to the second reading motion of Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and to make a The Liberals claim consultation as a cornerstone of their platform, consequential amendment to another Act, respectively standing in the name of the and they consistently refer to it as an important part of their Member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa and the Member for Fort McMurray —Cold Lake, be deemed negatived on division. legislative process, but in this case stakeholders such as the KPMA, which would be impacted significantly, were not consulted before ● (2010) the changes presented in Bill C-17 were hastily introduced last spring. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the The Liberals' Ottawa-centric agenda is not working, and worse amendment? yet, they are not listening to those who are and will be worse off because of it. Their promise to simply repeal the controversial sections of Bill S-6 is yet another example of how they made Some hon. members: Agreed. promises during the election campaign without considering the consequences. Now they put Yukon at a competitive disadvantage The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): The House with the rest of Canada for attracting private investment. has heard the terms of the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? Their regulatory changes are not the only ways they are harming the north, though. The Liberals' carbon tax burdens northerners, their Some hon. members: Agreed. businesses, and their families more than any other region in the entire country. People in northern territories are already required to (Amendment agreed to) pay more in fuel and transportation expenses just to sustain the basic necessities of life and to get essentials to their communities. The carbon tax will victimize people who rely on these services. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): Questions and comments, the hon. member for Yukon. The Prime Minister said his plan will be good for the economy, good for innovation, and good for jobs, but it is just not true. His Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to put carbon tax will cripple industry, hinder the economy, and drive up two points on the record about improvements in the bill since a the cost of living for northerners. It will also mean northerners will number of speeches may have been formulated. One is related to pay more for food that is already more than four times more timelines. There are timelines now in the process and they are done expensive than the costs elsewhere, along with other essential goods locally. They are done by the board and gazetted so everyone has and products. Electricity will become unaffordable to communities their say. The fear about timelines no longer exists. that do not have any other source but diesel. In the north, the carbon tax is really a tax on living. In a place where home heating and The other point is about reassessments. A new mechanism in the travelling long distances is part of life, northerners cannot afford it, bill would allow an assessment to be for longer than just the next particularly when legislation like Bill C-17 forces further barriers to licence, possibly for the life of the project, so there would not have to their most important economic driver, Canada's world-class mining be a reassessment partway through. These two improvements would sector. reduce some of the concerns people had about the bill. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12951

Adjournment Proceedings Mrs. Shannon Stubbs: Mr. Speaker, there is a larger issue, prime minister Trudeau, his father, by pitting regions against regions, though, about the Liberal track record of creating uncertainty and sectors against sectors, provinces against provinces, and people ongoing regulatory changes for natural resources right across the against people. board, whether it is for Yukon, LNG, pipelines, or energy development. I think all members in the House believe in the duty I hope that one day the Liberals will actually walk the talk about of the crown to consult in a robust and comprehensive regulatory uniting Canadians. process, balancing local concerns, first nations concerns, environ- The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): Resuming mental concerns, and economic opportunities. debate. I hope, as we go forward, the Liberals become more unequivocal Is the House ready for the question? about their support for natural resources development right across the board for all Canadians, all the opportunities and prosperity that Some hon. members: Question. will provide for future generations, and the importance of natural The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): The resources development for all economies across Canada. question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik— motion? Eeyou, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it sounded like the entire Yukon was doomed as I listened to the member's speech. I would like an Some hon. members: Agreed. explanation. I know of many regions in the country where there are Some hon. members: No. strict environmental and social assessment rules and the economies in those regions generally go very well. I would like the member to The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): All those point to examples or experiences where these kinds of rules exist and in favour of the motion will please say yea. the economies of those regions have gone bust. Some hon. members: Yea. Mrs. Shannon Stubbs: Mr. Speaker, in fact, the track record of Canadian resource development, from LNG to pipelines, to oil and The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): All those gas to mining is world class. Alberta in particular, but Canada in opposed will please say nay. general, had a long track record of the most stringent and rigorous regulatory assessment processes for all kinds of natural resources Some hon. members: Nay. development, which always involved consultations with first nations The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): In my people, as is the duty of the crown, as well as with stakeholders, opinion the yeas have it. assessments of economic opportunities, and balancing environmen- tal sustainability. That is the very thing about Canada. We produce And five or more members having risen: natural resources development in the most sustainable and responsible way in the world. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): : Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 30, the recorded division stands Not only do we export needed products across the globe, as well deferred until Tuesday, June 20, at the expiry of the time provided as technology and expertise, we also offer the world a decades-long for oral questions. track record of exactly how to do regulatory assessments in a way that is predictable, stimulates economic opportunities, prosperity in jobs for future generations, and unlocks the potential for natural Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. resources development. It is only the left that seems confused about As much as we are enjoying ourselves, I suspect if you were to whether Canada has a strong regulatory process. We always have. canvass the House, you would find it the will of the House to call it We do in mining and all kinds of other energy development. midnight at this time. ● (2015) The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): Is there unanimous consent to see the clock at midnight? Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there is a litany of potential disaster on our natural resource Some hon. members: Agreed. development across the way. The Liberals are changing the assessment processes, bringing uncertainty to both natural resource development and environmental protection, putting political opinion and spin ahead of science, mocking first nations by refusing to ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS respect transparency laws that are already in place, and playing games with people's lives through a carbon tax. A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved. Does the member think the divisiveness being caused by the [English] government is going to be more or less than the divisions caused by the Prime Minister's father? INFRASTRUCTURE Mrs. Shannon Stubbs: Mr. Speaker, certainly the disconnect and Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): the anger at Ottawa from the people I represent is greater and Mr. Speaker, there is a need for the federal government to listen to stronger than it has ever been in my lifetime. I would say that this questions rather than mindlessly repeat Gerald Butts/PMO hive Prime Minister is following down the exact same path as former talking points, which are an insult to all Canadians. 12952 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Adjournment Proceedings In this case, the government member in his canned, mansplained $5,844,612 the now revised amount available for transfer to response was confused about his own party's budget. If he had read municipalities through the federal gas tax fund. the federal budget, on page 89 of the budget document, he would have seen it clearly states the budget would: Do members see the pattern? None of the figures add up. Transfer remaining uncommitted funds from older federal infrastructure programs to municipalities through the Gas Tax Fund in 2016-17. Now we get to Ontario. The first figure provided as being The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): Order. I available to transfer to municipalities through the federal gas tax just want to remind the hon. members that adjournment proceedings transfer was $558,678,458. Four months later, the figure is are in place, and there are members speaking. It is nice to see $13,327,279. By the following year, the first figure had been everyone get along and be glad to get out, but maybe just let us reduced to $548,900,914, and the amount on budget day had been finish up in peace and quiet. Then we will get out of here faster. changed to $13,778,243. ● (2020) Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Mr. Speaker, the so-called uncommited Mr. Marc Miller (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of funds from Conservative legacy programs were accumulated without Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Govern- raising taxes and when the federal budget had been balanced. ment of Canada is dedicated to ensuring that its investments support the infrastructure Canadians need and use every day. When the Liberal Party took office in November 2015, there was $837 million available for transfer to municipalities across the Infrastructure Canada has worked closely with partners to expand country. According to the Minister of Infrastructure and Commu- eligibility requirements and accelerate the funding being delivered nities, less than five months later, on budget day, $805,887,514 had under its old programs and to quickly move forward with new disappeared. This left $30.1 million, which was transferred to the programs to support projects across the country. federal gas tax fund on March 31, 2017. My question for the minister was this: Where did the money go? [Translation] The talking point claimed, without answering the original question, and I quote from Hansard, March 10, 2017: When we took office in November 2015, $837 million was lying We have fulfilled that promise to transfer over to the gas tax funds the appropriate dormant in outdated funds that were several years old and had not amounts allocated. been allocated to infrastructure projects. Unlike the previous government, we have been working closely with the provinces and In fact, the federal government's own press release announcing the territories to identify projects and allocate those residual amounts transfer of $30.1 million is dated March 31, 2017. The March 10 before March 31, 2017. In one year, we were able to allocate more response was clearly intended to mislead the House, as the transfer than $800 million from those old programs to infrastructure projects occurred after I asked my question. More important, it did not right across the country. address the question of the missing $805 million. How else is the government misleading Canadians about For instance, we contributed $47 million in federal funding to infrastructure spending? widen Highway 417 from Maitland Avenue to Island Park Drive in Ottawa. We allocated $21.9 million in federal funding towards In response to an Order Paper question, the Liberal Party said, in renovating Saint Joseph's Oratory in Montreal. We also contributed November 2015, that $194,164 was available to be transferred to $54 million in federal funding towards the construction of Le Prince Edward Island through the gas tax fund. By May 5, 2017, that Diamant theatre, in Quebec City. The remaining $30 million from figure had been changed to $12. By the government's own figures, past programs was transferred to agreement holders at the end of the March 2017 transfer figure was then changed to $228,652. March to allow Canada's communities to invest that money according to their priorities. Newfoundland and Labrador figures contain the same discrepan- cies. The original figure provided by the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities was $1,404,252. That figure was then changed in ● (2025) response to another Order Paper question to read $1,012,269. It then claimed that $380,931 was available for the gas tax transfer, a [English] substantially reduced figure from the $1,366,972 number that had already been provided by the federal government on a different Since its introduction, the gas tax fund has provided more than $7 document. billion for municipal infrastructure projects in Ontario alone. The figures provided by the Minister of Infrastructure for the Province of Quebec showed $208,416,418 available for transfer. This permanent source of funding continues to offer local This figure had been reduced down to $6,014,015 on the day of the communities the flexibility to make strategic investments across 18 federal budget. different project categories, including public transit, roads, culture, sport, and recreation. By funding the rehabilitation of existing In another sleight-of-hand response to another question to the infrastructure and the building of new construction, the gas tax fund government, the $208 million was changed to $104,783,324, with boosts local employment and growth of the middle class. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12953

Adjournment Proceedings The Government of Canada is committed to working with First is the respect for the rights of indigenous people. It is provinces, territories, municipalities, and key stakeholders such as Snuneymuxw First Nation territory. The environmental overview the Union des municipalités du Québec and the Association of assessment described the process as inadequate. It said, “the lack of Municipalities of Ontario to ensure our municipalities continue to public and First Nations consultation leaves potential for significant receive the support they need in a streamlined fashion and a effects to occur within social components...” consistent, coherent fashion to build strong and vibrant communities.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Mr. Speaker, so where did the missing Second, we could save our coast from an oil spill. Five years ago infrastructure funds for Ontario really go if not the federal when I was chair of Islands Trust Council, three bulk carriers within infrastructure bank, the pay-to-borrow scheme? Plumper Sound dragged their anchors and came very close to The $805 million missing federal infrastructure dollars were found landing on the shoreline. The Department of Ecology oil spill sitting in Toronto buried in a line item as, and I quote from the 2016 coordinator on the Washington State side, Dale Jensen, said that Ontario Economic Outlook and Fiscal Review, unassigned “federal damage to fuel tanks on a cargo ship that size could have oiled the contributions to provincial infrastructure”. islands on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border. The Liberal Party of Toronto received one big fat cheque from the Liberal Party in Ottawa for the missing $805 million, which was Third, cancellation would give time for the industry to fix its apparently used to deceive the provincial taxpayers of Ontario about reputation in existing anchorages. Plumper South, Protection Island, balancing a budget. and Cowichan Bay all experience ongoing visual diesel smoke, generator noise, and excess light pollution. Industry has not chosen Mr. Marc Miller: Mr. Speaker, the federal gas tax fund is to mitigate any of those consequences. Again, this is all downside, predictable, flexible, long-term, and stable funding that is crucial to no upside for these communities. community infrastructure. Municipalities have the flexibility to direct federal funding toward projects they identify as a priority. [Translation] Fourth, it would allow decisions to be based on science, facts and evidence. The Conservative Party having gutted the Fisheries Act Transferring the remaining $30 million from old programs to the means the habitat impact on fisheries in our area has not been federal gas tax fund is an effective way to support municipalities' assessed. investments. [English] Fifth, it would protect species at risk. We both have glass sponge The Government of Canada is committed to working with reefs, amazing treasures of the deep ocean in the Salish Sea, which provinces, territories, and municipalities, as well as with key partners are not fully mapped and explored. This is also a transit and feeding such as the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Union area for the southern resident orca whale, which is listed as des municipalités du Québec to ensure that these people have the endangered or threatened under the Species at Risk Act. support they need to build and fulfill their needs and to build strong, stronger, and inclusive communities. It would build Canada's reputation as a country that is willing to THE ENVIRONMENT act on climate change and it would support many elected bodies Ms. Sheila Malcolmson (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP): Mr. opposed to the anchorage establishment. Speaker, last time we had this conversation, we were talking about the government's willingness to support members of my community on Gabriola Island within my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith in Will the minister assure residents of Gabriola Island and users of their opposition to the proposal for five new commercial deep sea the Salish Sea that he will not approve the five bulk commercial anchorages. These are causing great concern in my community, as is anchorages off Gabriola Island? evidenced by the hundreds of petition signatures I have tabled in the House. ● (2030) Gabriola Island is my home along with thousands of other people in my community. I feel strongly about it, especially given that the Mrs. Karen McCrimmon (Parliamentary Secretary to the proposal to establish new anchorages is to facilitate exports of Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for thermal coal from Wyoming, which no U.S. port would allow to exit Nanaimo—Ladysmith for her advocacy. through their ports. The port of Vancouver, despite universal opposition from surrounding British Columbia municipalities, agreed to facilitate their exports. Trade is a key priority for our government and for Canadians. Canada's trade with countries in the Asia-Pacific region continues to It has no visible community benefits. It threatens our community grow. As these trade volumes rise, our west coast ports, our and our coastline and is creating great anxiety. We do not want the gateways, experience increased activity. This means that on occasion Minister of Transport to approve these anchorages. Not going more vessels are ready to enter the port than there are berths forward with these anchorages would have multiple benefits. available at terminals. 12954 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Adjournment Proceedings There is, generally speaking, an effective system for managing efficient and environmentally sustainable marine transportation these vessels at Canadian port authorities and public ports. In order system. Anchorages are an integral part of an efficient shipping to ensure the safe and secure movement of marine traffic, ships that and navigation system. are waiting to dock at a Canada port authority or a public port are directed to a designated anchorage within the port's waters, pending the availability of a berth at the appropriate facility or terminal. Considering the effects the use of anchorages may have on the Under the Canada Marine Act, Canada port authorities and public environment remains a priority. Under Canada oceans protection ports have the authority to assign and manage anchorage spots plan, we are committed to develop and implement a process to within their area of jurisdiction. If a ship arrives at a port but no berth identify and manage new anchorages outside Canada port authorities is available at the terminal, the port directs it to wait at a designated or public ports. This would be done, taking into account various anchorage within the port's jurisdiction. From time to time, risks to marine safety, security and the environment, and will include anchorages within port's boundaries may be full or a vessel may consultation of local community stakeholders and experts. be too large for a port's designated anchorages. In these cases, the vessel would need to anchor outside the port's waters. In recent years, the west coast in particular has seen an increase in PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES the use of local anchorages due to high volumes of traffic. We are aware this creates significant concern for local communities affected by vessel noise and lights. Hon. Mike Lake (Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, The Canada Shipping Act currently does not provide for the as we have done the previous four times with these late shows on the Governor in Council or the Minister of Transport to designate, Canadian autism partnership, we are broadcasting this one via approve, or manage anchorage sites in waters outside of the Facebook Live again, which is an interesting opportunity for jurisdiction of Canada port authorities and public ports. Canadians to hear yet the same answers over and over again. We have had five opportunities now to do this, this being our fifth. Our government recognizes that the environmental integrity of Canadian waters is essential to the well-being of our marine transportation system. Developing a process to identify and manage anchorages outside of a Canada port authority or public port is one Interestingly, this is our fifth different parliamentary secretary. We of the many important marine safety initiatives in Canada's oceans have had the parliamentary secretary for health and the parliamen- protection plan. This work, involving technical experts and tary secretary for persons with disabilities and sport. Interestingly, stakeholder and community consultation, will help to ensure Canada we have had the parliamentary secretary for revenue. We have had continues to prosper economically, while protecting our marine the parliamentary secretary for defence, who did not do a very good environment. job defending the Liberal position on this. Ms. Sheila Malcolmson: Mr. Speaker, I will note again for the member's information that this is not a Canadian product or a Canadian appetite. This is not trade. This is Wyoming coal to be Interestingly, we now have the parliamentary secretary for burned in power plants in China. This has nothing to do with transport answering a question about a Canadian autism partnership. Canadian benefit. Maybe that is fitting, given the number of Canadians who travel from jurisdiction to jurisdiction to get evidence-based treatment in Two weeks ago the government launched a review process of the this country. Canadian Pilotage Act. A number of participants who will be invited are named, including indigenous groups, which I do not think is in keeping with the government's commitment to indigenous govern- ment in a nation-to-nation relationship, so we will ensure that a I will provide a bit of history of the Canadian autism partnership government-to-government relationship is carried out. for those who have not been following along. However, the list does not mention local governments, such as the Gabriola Local Trust Committee, the Regional District of Nanaimo and Islands Trust Council, all the governments that are on record as In 2015, our government established an expert working group of opposed to the establishment of these new bulk anchorages. Neither 12 prominent Canadian experts on autism to put together a plan for a does it include groups like the chamber of commerce or the Canadian autism partnership. This working group worked with a Gabriolans Against Freighter Anchorages Society. team of seven incredible self-advocates who worked alongside it. They worked with families. They listened to almost 5,000 Will the minister's representative assure me that such groups that submissions. They met with provincial and territorial governments have a very strong stake in the outcome of this review will be across the country, every single province and territory in Canada, to warmly invited inside the process? get input into the business plan that they brought forward in the fall ● (2035) of 2016. They brought that business plan forward with an ask for Mrs. Karen McCrimmon: Mr. Speaker, Canada port authorities $19 million over five years, just $3.8 million a year. That is a dime are critical to our trade dependent economy, providing a safe, secure, per Canadian per year. June 19, 2017 COMMONS DEBATES 12955

Adjournment Proceedings The Canadian autism partnership would bring these experts better diagnostic tools and treatments. It has also enabled Canadian together to work with families, with stakeholders, with self- researchers to be recognized as global leaders in this area, and to advocates, and with some of the top researchers in the world right participate in major global research initiatives on autism. here in Canada. It would advise governments in their jurisdictions on the real challenges facing families and individuals living with autism [Translation] in Canada in the areas of, for example, education, early intervention, housing, vocation, a lot of the difficult transitions that people with autism have across their lifespan, and maybe mental health issues in Federal investment in research has a real impact on the lives of some places, and provide absolute, solid, evidence-based advice, the people with ASD and their families. That is why our government best advice gathered from jurisdictions around the world to serve made significant investments in research and innovation in the last Canadians living with autism. two federal budgets. Unbelievably, although half of the Liberal caucus signed support letters in support of the Canadian autism partnership, it did not find [English] its way into the budget, into a budget that ran a deficit of $25 billion a year. The government could not find $3.8 million to fund the Canadian autism partnership, which was years in the making, with For instance, in budget 2016, the federal government announced a thousands of people weighing in. new ongoing investment of $30 million per year to support investigator-led research through CIHR. This investment represented What we will probably hear from the parliamentary secretary is the highest amount of new annual funding for discovery health what we have heard 15 times in question period and four times research in more than a decade. during the late show. She will probably list off measures that the previous Conservative government funded, measures like ready, willing, and able, community works, the autism surveillance In budget 2016, the federal government also announced an program, or $39 million in research. We have talked time and again investment of $20 million over three years to Brain Canada to about what those researchers want. Four of them were on the continue efforts toward increasing our understanding of the brain and Canadian autism partnership working group. What they want more brain health. This contributed to bringing investments for the Canada than anything else is for their research to actually be used to benefit brain research fund to $240 million. With more than 800 researchers Canadians in areas like early intervention, education, housing, at 112 institutions, the Canada brain research fund represents the vocation, and other things. largest public-private fund in Canadian history devoted to supporting brain research. Though I will not hold my breath, what I am hoping we will hear from the parliamentary secretary is a reason why, while every Conservative, New Democrat, and Green member of Parliament [Translation] voted yes to the Canadian autism partnership, every single Liberal voted no except for one. Thanks to this initiative, Brain Canada has supported 13 research ● (2040) projects in areas related to ASD and other neurodevelopmental Mrs. Karen McCrimmon (Parliamentary Secretary to the disorders with funding totalling $16.7 million. Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the hon. member for his question and his advocacy. [English] Parents of children with autism spectrum disorder, or ASD, want what is best for their children, just as all parents do. Beyond research and data, we are also investing in initiatives that The Government of Canada recognizes that children and adults will make a tangible and practical difference for individuals living with autism have different needs that have to be addressed so they with autism in Canada. The $40-million opportunities fund, can reach their full potential. delivered regionally and nationally through Service Canada centres, is supporting individuals with disabilities, including autism, by [Translation] providing a range of tools and services that will help them prepare The federal government invests considerable sums every year to for, obtain, and maintain employment. build skills and support training by filling knowledge gaps and supporting research aimed at making sure children and adults affected by autism spectrum disorder, or ASD, and their families can In closing, I would like to affirm that the Government of Canada get the best support and treatment available. is committed to our continued collaboration with provincial and territorial partners and with autism organizations that are working to [English] support families. We will continue to work collaboratively to align priorities— Recent investments have enabled autism researchers in univer- sities and research institutions from across the country to contribute to the ongoing efforts to advance our knowledge about the The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): The hon. underlying causes of ASD, and to translate that knowledge into member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin. 12956 COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2017

Adjournment Proceedings Hon. Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, those watching will note again autism partnership has served to highlight the complex challenges that there is absolutely zero reason given yet by the current Liberal facing families affected by ASD. That is why federally we are government for its refusal to fund the Canadian autism partnership. I supporting a range of initiatives that are needed to truly make a am going to read a quote, one of my favourite quotes from Jerry difference for families and that increase the societal inclusion and Rice, of NFL Hall of Fame: “Today I will do what others won't, so participation of Canadians with disabilities or functional limitations. tomorrow I can accomplish what others can't.” I am determined to see the Canadian autism partnership come to The government will continue to engage with a range of reality. I know that Canadian families living with autism and stakeholders on autism to identify effective, responsible opportu- Canadians living with autism are equally determined. nities for partnerships to support a better quality of life for those living with autism and their families. We live in a democracy. I encourage those Canadians to continue to reach out to the Liberal MPs through Twitter, through Facebook, through email, and through phone calls. I would ask this in closing: The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): The when people do that, is this Liberal member open to changing her motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been mind and supporting Canadians living with autism? adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). ● (2045) Mrs. Karen McCrimmon: Mr. Speaker, the proposal put forward by the Canadian Autism Spectrum Disorders Alliance for a Canadian (The House adjourned at 8:46 p.m.)

CONTENTS

Monday, June 19, 2017

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Anniversary of the Pemmican War Ms. Mihychuk ...... 12898 Department of Public Works and Government Services Act Turkey Mr. Sangha ...... 12873 Mr. Genuis ...... 12899 Bill C-344. Second reading ...... 12873 Attack in London Mr. Clarke ...... 12874 Mr. Alghabra ...... 12899 Mr. Weir ...... 12874 Ms. Alleslev ...... 12875 Forest Fires in Portugal ...... Mr. Clarke ...... 12875 Mrs. Mendès 12899 Mr. Weir ...... 12876 World Elder Abuse Awareness Day Mr. Miller (Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs) 12877 Mrs. Wong...... 12899 Mr. McCauley ...... 12878 Forest Fires in Portugal Mr. Longfield...... 12880 Mr. Fonseca ...... 12899 GOVERNMENT ORDERS Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Mr. Ehsassi ...... 12900 Amendments to Standing Orders Ms. Chagger...... 12881 Simon Ibell Motion ...... 12881 Mr. Carrie ...... 12900 Ms. Bergen ...... 12883 Helmut Kohl Mr. Rankin ...... 12884 Mr. Spengemann ...... 12900 Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) ...... 12884 Northwestern British Columbia Mr. Graham ...... 12884 Mr. Cullen ...... 12900 Mr. Genuis ...... 12884 Mr. O'Toole...... 12885 Indigenous Affairs Ms. Bergen ...... 12885 Mrs. McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo)...... 12901 Ms. Tassi ...... 12890 Infrastructure Mr. Rankin ...... 12891 Mr. Iacono ...... 12901 Mr. Graham ...... 12891 Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) ...... 12891 ORAL QUESTIONS Mr. Rankin ...... 12892 Finance Mr. Chan ...... 12893 Mr. Rayes ...... 12901 Mr. Hoback...... 12894 Mr. Trudeau ...... 12901 Ms. Pauzé ...... 12894 Mr. Dubé ...... 12894 Infrastructure Amendment...... 12896 Mr. Rayes ...... 12901 Mr. Lamoureux ...... 12896 Mr. Trudeau ...... 12901 Mr. Genuis ...... 12896 Mr. Rayes ...... 12901 Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) ...... 12897 Mr. Trudeau ...... 12902 Ms. Bergen ...... 12902 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Mr. Trudeau ...... 12902 Raif Badawi Finance Mr. Thériault ...... 12897 Ms. Bergen ...... 12902 Mr. Trudeau ...... 12902 Dilallo Burger Mr. Lametti ...... 12898 International Trade Ms. Brosseau ...... 12902 Credit Unions Mr. Trudeau ...... 12902 Mr. Albas ...... 12898 Ms. Brosseau ...... 12902 Father's Day Mr. Trudeau ...... 12903 Mr. Chan ...... 12898 Infrastructure Sale of Stelco Mr. Dubé ...... 12903 Mr. Duvall ...... 12898 Mr. Trudeau ...... 12903 Mr. Dubé ...... 12903 Mr. Rioux ...... 12908 Mr. Trudeau ...... 12903 Status of Women Foreign Investment Ms. Malcolmson...... 12908 Mr. Deltell ...... 12903 Mr. Duguid ...... 12908 Mr. Lametti ...... 12903 Indigenous Affairs Mr. Deltell ...... 12903 Mrs. McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo)...... 12908 Mr. Lametti ...... 12903 Ms. Bennett ...... 12908 Mrs. Stubbs...... 12904 Mrs. McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo)...... 12908 Mr. Lametti ...... 12904 Ms. Bennett ...... 12909 Mrs. Stubbs...... 12904 Ms. Rempel ...... 12909 Mr. Lametti ...... 12904 Ms. Bennett ...... 12909 Mr. O'Toole...... 12904 Mr. Lametti ...... 12904 Canada Revenue Agency Mr. Fergus ...... 12909 Ethics Mrs. Lebouthillier ...... 12909 Mr. O'Toole...... 12904 Mr. Lametti ...... 12904 Taxation Mr. Barlow ...... 12909 Canada Revenue Agency Ms. Petitpas Taylor...... 12909 Mr. Boulerice ...... 12904 Mrs. Lebouthillier ...... 12905 Agriculture and Agri-Food Mr. Cullen ...... 12905 Mr. Stetski ...... 12909 Mrs. Lebouthillier ...... 12905 Mr. Poissant ...... 12909 Foreign Investment Public Safety Mr. Brassard ...... 12905 Ms. Damoff...... 12910 Mr. Lametti ...... 12905 Mr. Duguid ...... 12910 Mr. Brassard ...... 12905 Finance Mr. Lametti ...... 12905 Mr. Albas ...... 12910 Justice Ms. Petitpas Taylor...... 12910 Mr. Nicholson ...... 12905 Infrastructure Ms. Wilson-Raybould ...... 12906 Mr. Barsalou-Duval ...... 12910 Mr. Cooper ...... 12906 Mr. Sohi ...... 12910 Ms. Wilson-Raybould ...... 12906 Mr. Ste-Marie...... 12910 Government Appointments Mr. Sohi ...... 12910 Mr. Choquette ...... 12906 Softwood Lumber Ms. Joly ...... 12906 Mrs. Gill...... 12910 Consular Affairs Mr. Carr ...... 12911 Mr. Dusseault...... 12906 Privilege Mr. Alghabra ...... 12906 Commissioner of Official Languages Justice Mr. Choquette ...... 12911 Mr. Oliphant...... 12906 Ms. Wilson-Raybould ...... 12907 GOVERNMENT ORDERS National Defence Transportation Modernization Act Mr. Bezan ...... 12907 Bill C-49. Second reading ...... 12911 Mr. Rioux ...... 12907 Motion agreed to ...... 12912 Mr. Paul-Hus ...... 12907 (Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee) ...... 12912 Mr. Rioux ...... 12907 Foreign Affairs Points of Order Oral Questions Mr. Bezan ...... 12907 Ms. Damoff...... 12912 Mr. DeCourcey ...... 12907 Appointment of Clerk of the House of Commons National Defence Mr. Nater ...... 12912 Mr. Paul-Hus ...... 12907 Mr. LeBlanc ...... 12914 Mr. Rioux ...... 12908 Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) ...... 12914 Veterans Affairs Speaker's Ruling Ms. Mathyssen ...... 12908 The Speaker ...... 12914 ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS ROYAL ASSENT The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota) ...... 12920 Committees of the House Fisheries and Oceans Committees of the House

Mr. LeBlanc ...... 12915 Official Languages Motion to concur ...... 12920 Government Response to Petitions Mr. Lefebvre...... 12920 Mr. Lamoureux ...... 12915 Mr. Généreux...... 12922 Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Mr. Choquette ...... 12922 Mr. Holland ...... 12915 Mr. Drouin ...... 12922 Mr. Berthold...... 12923 Corrections and Conditional Release Act Mr. Choquette ...... 12923 Mr. Carr (for the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) ...... 12915 Ms. Lapointe ...... 12925 ...... Bill C-56. Introduction and first reading...... 12915 Mr. Généreux 12926 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and Mr. Boulerice ...... 12926 printed) ...... 12915 Mr. Samson...... 12927 Mr. Généreux...... 12928 Federal Sustainable Development Act Mr. Choquette ...... 12929 Ms. McKenna ...... 12915 Mr. Berthold...... 12930 Bill C-57. Introduction and first reading...... 12915 Motion ...... 12930 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and (Motion agreed to) ...... 12930 printed) ...... 12915

Access to Information Act GOVERNMENT ORDERS Mr. Brison ...... 12915 Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Bill C-58. Introduction and first reading...... 12915 Act (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and Bill C-17. Second reading ...... 12930 printed) ...... 12915 Ms. Blaney (North Island—Powell River)...... 12930

Committees of the House Mr. Bagnell...... 12931 Procedure and House Affairs Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) ...... 12931

Mr. Bagnell ...... 12915 Mr. Johns ...... 12932 Agriculture and Agri-Food Mr. Bagnell...... 12933

Mr. Finnigan...... 12915 Mr. Genuis ...... 12934 Veterans Affairs Mrs. McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo)...... 12934

Mr. Ellis ...... 12915 Mr. Bagnell...... 12935

Mr. Brassard ...... 12915 Ms. Hardcastle ...... 12936 Indigenous and Northern Affairs Mr. Barlow ...... 12936 Mr. Bagnell...... 12937 Ms. Mihychuk ...... 12916 Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) ...... 12938 Income Tax Act Mr. Genuis ...... 12938 Mr. Rankin ...... 12916 Mr. Bagnell...... 12940 Bill C-362. Introduction and first reading ...... 12916 Mr. Saganash ...... 12941 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) ...... 12941 printed) ...... 12916 Committees of the House ROYAL ASSENT Official Languages The Speaker ...... 12942

Mr. Généreux...... 12916

Motion for concurrence ...... 12916 GOVERNMENT ORDERS Mr. Ouellette ...... 12919 Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Mr. Choquette ...... 12919 Act Bill C-17. Second reading ...... 12942 Points of Order Mrs. Gallant ...... 12942 Alleged Premature Disclosure of Government Bills Mr. Fergus ...... 12945 Mr. Albas ...... 12920 Mr. Saganash ...... 12946 Committees of the House Mr. Carrie ...... 12946

Official Languages Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) ...... 12946 Motion for concurrence ...... 12920 Mr. Fragiskatos ...... 12946 Mr. Berthold...... 12920 Mr. Viersen ...... 12947 Mr. Bagnell ...... 12948 ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS

Mr. Saganash ...... 12948 Infrastructure

Mrs. Stubbs...... 12948 Mrs. Gallant ...... 12951 Mr. Miller (Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs) 12952 Amendment...... 12950 The Environment (Amendment agreed to) ...... 12950 Ms. Malcolmson...... 12953 Mr. Bagnell ...... 12950 Mrs. McCrimmon ...... 12953 Mr. Saganash ...... 12951 Persons with Disabilities Mr. Anderson...... 12951 Mr. Lake...... 12954 Division on motion deferred ...... 12951 Mrs. McCrimmon ...... 12955

Published under the authority of the Speaker of Publié en conformité de l’autorité the House of Commons du Président de la Chambre des communes SPEAKER’S PERMISSION PERMISSION DU PRÉSIDENT

The proceedings of the House of Commons and its Commit- Les délibérations de la Chambre des communes et de ses tees are hereby made available to provide greater public comités sont mises à la disposition du public pour mieux le access. The parliamentary privilege of the House of Commons renseigner. La Chambre conserve néanmoins son privilège to control the publication and broadcast of the proceedings of parlementaire de contrôler la publication et la diffusion des the House of Commons and its Committees is nonetheless délibérations et elle possède tous les droits d’auteur sur celles- reserved. All copyrights therein are also reserved. ci. Reproduction of the proceedings of the House of Commons Il est permis de reproduire les délibérations de la Chambre et and its Committees, in whole or in part and in any medium, is de ses comités, en tout ou en partie, sur n’importe quel hereby permitted provided that the reproduction is accurate support, pourvu que la reproduction soit exacte et qu’elle ne and is not presented as official. This permission does not soit pas présentée comme version officielle. Il n’est toutefois extend to reproduction, distribution or use for commercial pas permis de reproduire, de distribuer ou d’utiliser les purpose of financial gain. Reproduction or use outside this délibérations à des fins commerciales visant la réalisation d'un permission or without authorization may be treated as profit financier. Toute reproduction ou utilisation non permise copyright infringement in accordance with the Copyright Act. ou non formellement autorisée peut être considérée comme Authorization may be obtained on written application to the une violation du droit d’auteur aux termes de la Loi sur le Office of the Speaker of the House of Commons. droit d’auteur. Une autorisation formelle peut être obtenue sur présentation d’une demande écrite au Bureau du Président de la Chambre. Reproduction in accordance with this permission does not La reproduction conforme à la présente permission ne constitute publication under the authority of the House of constitue pas une publication sous l’autorité de la Chambre. Commons. The absolute privilege that applies to the Le privilège absolu qui s’applique aux délibérations de la proceedings of the House of Commons does not extend to Chambre ne s’étend pas aux reproductions permises. Lors- these permitted reproductions. Where a reproduction includes qu’une reproduction comprend des mémoires présentés à un briefs to a Committee of the House of Commons, authoriza- comité de la Chambre, il peut être nécessaire d’obtenir de tion for reproduction may be required from the authors in leurs auteurs l’autorisation de les reproduire, conformément à accordance with the Copyright Act. la Loi sur le droit d’auteur. Nothing in this permission abrogates or derogates from the La présente permission ne porte pas atteinte aux privilèges, privileges, powers, immunities and rights of the House of pouvoirs, immunités et droits de la Chambre et de ses comités. Commons and its Committees. For greater certainty, this Il est entendu que cette permission ne touche pas l’interdiction permission does not affect the prohibition against impeaching de contester ou de mettre en cause les délibérations de la or questioning the proceedings of the House of Commons in Chambre devant les tribunaux ou autrement. La Chambre courts or otherwise. The House of Commons retains the right conserve le droit et le privilège de déclarer l’utilisateur and privilege to find users in contempt of Parliament if a coupable d’outrage au Parlement lorsque la reproduction ou reproduction or use is not in accordance with this permission. l’utilisation n’est pas conforme à la présente permission.

Also available on the House of Commons website at the Aussi disponible sur le site Web de la Chambre des communes following address: http://www.ourcommons.ca à l’adresse suivante : http://www.noscommunes.ca